Sitting of 21 April 1884

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—William James Harris, esquire, for Poole.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Commissariat and Transport Services (Egyptian Campaign), Dr. Farquharson, added.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES—CLASS I.—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Royal Irish Constabulary [176].
Second Reading—Board of Works (Ireland) (No. 2) [165], debate adjourned; Intestates Estates [168], debate adjourned; Public Health (Confirmation of Bye-Laws) [173]; Marriages Legalisation (Wood Green Congregational Church)* [174]; Matrimonial Causes [175], debate adjourned; Fisheries (Ireland) [27]; Irish Land Court Officers (Exclusion from Parliament) [89], debate adjourned.
Third Reading — Real Assets Administration [98], and passed.

QUESTIONS.

  STATE OF IRELAND — THE RIOTS AT LONDONDERRY — THE COMMISSION OF INQUIRY.
  MR. LEWISasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, in the course of his examination before the Commissioners, Messrs. Bewley and White, appointed to inquire into the disturbance at Derry on 1st December last, Mr. Inspector Bernard deposed as follows:—
  "I have a list of people who can be identified in both processions, and am prepared with evidence when instructions are issued for an investigation:
  "As what? — As in the procession firing shots:
  "In both processions?—Yes; some firing shots from the Corporation Hall, and others from the Nationalists:
  "Give us the names of any persons whose shots are supposed to have hit Durnion?—I have the name of a man who is alleged to have fired shots from the procession:

  125
  "What is Ms name?—I do not wish to mention it:
  "Mr. Bewley: I do not think the witness ought to he required to disclose it:
  "Mr. Dane: Very well. At all events, you have the name of a man who is alleged to have fired shots?—I have:
  "Was he in the Lord Mayor's procession?— He was;"
  whether any investigation has taken place, or will take place, into the officer's statement; and, whether any prosecution will be ordered of the person whose name is known to the inspector?
  MR. TREVELYAN: District Inspector Bernard did depose as stated in the Question. His statement was not founded on any knowledge of his own, but upon allegations made that a shot had been fired from the Lord Mayor's Procession by a person named Lawrence Nash, wounding Durnion. At the trial of Thomas Doherty, for the shooting of Kelly, evidence was given by two witnesses for the defence that a shot was fired by a member of the Lord Mayor's Procession, Lawrence Nash, which wounded Durnion. This evidence, which was given for the purpose of showing that Nash was the guilty party, in the cases of both Kelly and Durnion was not believed by the jury, and was not acted on by them. It is not intended to order any prosecution against Lawrence Nash, as there does not appear to be any reliable evidence against him.

  ARMY —THE ROYAL IRISH FUSILIERS.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Secretary of State for War, If Sergeant Clarke, 4th Battalion Royal Irish Fusiliers (formerly called Cavan Militia), has been kept recruiting since the July of last year up to the present away from his family and head quarters; and, is it the usual rule only to keep them half that time?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, the non-commissioned officer referred to in this Question was upon recruiting duty from the 10th of July to March of the present year. He was at perfect liberty to take his family with him if he liked; but he preferred not to do so. Perhaps I may state that a letter has been received from the noncommissioned officer referred to expressing his surprise that the Question should
  126
  have been put, and repudiating any connection with the hon. Member in regard to his action.
  MR. BIGGAR: I may explain that only a very small part of the Question has appeared upon the Paper; and I have a very different reason for putting it from that which appears to strike the noble Marquess.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)— NORTH OF IRELAND ROYAL ARTILLERY.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (for Mr. SEXTON)asked the Secretary of State for War, What provision the War Department has made to secure for the Catholics of the 2nd Brigade, North of Ireland Royal Artillery, the ministrations of their religion during the time of preliminary drill and training this year at Carrickfergus; and, whether, in the event of the Department not allowing the necessary expense of a special service for the Catholics of the Brigade during their stay for drill at Carrickfergus, directions will be given that the Brigade be assembled henceforth for preliminary drill and training at Belfast, or Ballymena, or some one of the larger towns in the county Antrim, where the church accommodation at the disposal of the local Catholic clergy will enable them to admit the Catholics of the Brigade to the parochial mass?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The Regulations provide a fixed rate of remuneration for such ministrations, which is usually found to be sufficient for the duties to be performed; but in this case the local priest considers it insufficient. I have no power to increase the allowance. The place of training has been arranged locally by the General Officer commanding with reference to the barrack accommodation available and other considerations. I cannot undertake to alter it.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND) — OUTRAGES IN TIPPERARY.
  MR. LEAHY (for Mr. MAYNE)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether a series of outrages were committed on the night of Saturday the 22nd of March, or early morning of Sunday the 23rd, between the town of Tipperary and the Limerick Junction, two miles distant, including the breaking of railway lamps at Tip-

  127
  perary Station, the smashing of the distance signal of the Waterford and Limerick Bail way at the Limerick Junction, and the robbery of the large lamp belonging to same, as well as the setting fire to a rick of hay belonging to Mr. James Dwyer, of Bohererone, about halfway between Tipperary Station and Limerick Junction; whether the night watchman in Tipperary met between 3 and 4 a.m. on Sunday morning, three youths with the large signal lamp stolen from the junction in their possession; whether these youths admitted their guilt on being arrested; and, whether they are being prosecuted by the authorities?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I am informed that no such series of outrages on the railway occurred; but that on the night mentioned three school-boys in a foolish freak took a signal lamp from the line and carried it openly into the town of Tipperary. It was found with them, as stated, by a night watchman; and they were subsequently arrested by the police and brought before two magistrates, by whose desire the matter was reported to the Railway Company in order that they might take proceedings if they wished. The boys were severely punished by the school authorities, two being expelled and the third flogged; and the Government do not think the matter calls for further notice. There is no reason to suppose that the boys had anything to with the burning of Mr. Dwyer's hay, which occurred a mile and a-half away.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—IRREGULARITIES IN BELFAST WORKHOUSE.
  MR. LEAHY (for Mr. KENNY)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If disclosures of certain irregularities in the Belfast Workhouse have recently come to the knowledge of the Irish Local Government Board; and, if so, whether they are of sufficient importance to require a sworn investigation?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Some irregularities in the Belfast Workhouse did come to the knowledge of the Local Government Board; and the Board inform me that they were carefully inquired into and dealt with by the Guardians, and that they do not consider a sworn investigation necessary.

  IRELAND—REGISTRY OF DEEDS OFFICE, DUBLIN.
  MR. LYNCHasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he can state the number of documents registered, and the number of searches issued, by the Registry of Deeds, Ireland, in the year 1883; whether the officials engaged in making such searches and constructing the records of the Department are liable for any loss that may arise through error or otherwise; whether, in a memorial to the Treasury in 1865, the property annually registered was estimated at nine millions sterling; whether there is any other department in Ireland in which business of such magnitude is transacted, or in which the duties are of such a responsible and technical nature; whether a Royal Commission which inquired into the Registration of Deeds issued a Report in October 1880, containing certain recommendations intended to confer a present benefit on the clerical staff; whether his attention has been drawn to Mr. Armstrong's note in the said Report, to the effect that the existing staff should receive such special improvement as their position justified; and, whether, with a view to remove the existing widespread discontent, and to ensure the efficient discharge of the functions of the Department, he will grant such an improvement in salaries, classification, and annual increment as will place the staff on an equality with those of other important offices?
  MR. COURTNEY: I have already dealt with all the points raised by this Question, in reply to the five Questions which have been put to me this Session on the subject of this Office. There is no necessity for increasing its cost, and no intention of doing so. On the contrary, we hope somewhat to diminish it by the substitution, when vacancies occur, of cheaper clerks than those employed in some of the Departments of the Office at present.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS)— FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE—THE MARKET AT ST. IVES.
  MR. HICKSasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Whether, seeing that the local authorities of Cambridgeshire have no control over the market at Saint Ives, Huntingdonshire, to which market a large proportion of the cases of

  129
  foot-and-mouth disease in Cambridgeshire have been traced, he will direct the travelling Inspectors to pay particular attention to that market?
  MR. DODSON, in reply, said, that he had not heard of any case of disease in the market of St. Ives; but the Inspectors had reported as to its unsatisfactory condition, and communications had taken place with the Local Authority. The market would be closely watched.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)-ELECTION OF GUARDIANS—DRUMCLIFFE WEST —SLIGO UNION.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (for Mr. SEXTON)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to a statement made in an official communication by the returning officer of Sligo Union to the Local Government Board—namely, that he had no knowledge of Mr. Thomas Simpson, one of the candidates in the election of a guardian for the Drumcliffe West electoral division, having illegally taken away the voting papers of persons entitled to vote for the said division, Whether it is true that, on the 21st ultimo, the day before the scrutiny, Mrs. Mary Currid, a person entitled to vote for the said division, declared to the said returning officer, in the Board room of the Union, and in the presence of the Rev. J. C. Madden, C.C. of Castletown, Drumcliffe, that Mr. Thomas Simpson had taken away her voting paper against her will, and against her demand and protest, and, on the next evening, had given her the paper of another voter; whether, upon this statement, it was the duty of the returning officer to declare Mr. Simpson disqualified and the other candidate elected, or to report to the Local Government Board, with a view to proceedings against Mr. Simpson, under 1 and 2 Vic. cap. 56, sec. 99, and 6 and 7 Vic. cap. 92, sec. 25; whether any steps have been taken by the Local Government Board, or by the returning officer, to initiate such proceedings or to take the evidence of Mrs. Currid and the Rev. Mr; Madden; and, whether the other candidate has been declared elected, or a new election has been ordered?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Returning Officer has reported to the Local Government Board that Mrs. Currid did not make the statement that Mr. Simpson
  130
  had taken away her voting paper forcibly; but that she did state that Mr. Simpson had not given her back the proper voting paper, and that the policeman would not take the paper she tendered to him, as it did not bear the number of that given to her. Mr. Simpson had a majority of 23 votes, and the Local Government Board do not think that it was the duty of the Returning Officer to declare him disqualified, and the other candidate elected, on the statement of Mrs. Currid referred to. Nor was he bound to report the conversation or complaint to the Board, when the votes alluded to could not in any way affect the return. The Local Government Board have informed the defeated candidate that if he has any evidence to support an objection to the right of Mr. Simpson to act as a Guardian by reason of his not having obtained a majority of valid votes, they are willing to inquire into the circumstances; but it is not their practice to institute proceedings under Section 25 of 6 & 7 Vict. c. 92. It is open to any person who may feel aggrieved to take proceedings under that section.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)— DISTURBANCES AT BALLYMACARRETT.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Is it true that complaints were made to the Constabulary of Ballymacarrett, Belfast, by the Rev. Patrick Farrelly, that his windows were broken on 26th December last, and again within a week of that date; was the stone-throwing on 17th March an attack on the Catholic Congregation leaving the Church on the National Holiday, and is it a fact that the only individual made amenable was caught, not by the police, but by the Priest, the Rev. Patrick Farrelly himself; is it a fact that the Constabulary suffered the individual to be at liberty though caught in flagrante delicto, and allowed him to be brought before magistrates on summons; did District Inspector Bull, on being personally informed by the Rev. P. Farrelly of the stone-throwing at his Congregation on 17th March last, reply to that gentleman that such a case was trivial; and, did Hon. Captain Forbes, R, M., when adjudicating on the case of stone-throwing on 17th March, express an opinion

  131
  that it should have been at once brought up in the Custody Court?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I am informed that the Rev. Mr. Farrelly complained that one pane of glass was broken in his window on the 26th of December last, and another on the 31st. The stone-throwing on the 17th of March was not an organized attack on the Catholic congregation. The allegation is that the Catholic boys called the others names, and thus provoked the disturbance. It is the fact that the only person made amenable was caught by the Rev. Mr. Farrelly, who witnessed the disturbance. The reason this boy was not arrested when the police came up was that they did not know what he was charged with, and the Rev. Mr. Farrelly asked the policeman to tell him the boy's name, but refused to say why he wanted to know it. Subsequently the police ascertained what the boy was accused of, and had him summoned. It is not the case that Colonel Forbes, when adjudicating, said that the case should have been at once brought up in the Custody Court. Neither did the District Inspector, upon being informed by the Rev. Mr. Farrelly of stone-throwing at his congregation, say that such a case was trivial. What he states he did say was that he advised the rev. gentleman not to make a State case out of the matter, as no one was hurt, and no harm done.

  IRELAND — DEFALCATIONS OF MR. ELLIOTT, COLLECTOR OF RATES, BLACKROCK.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (for Mr. SEXTON)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. John D. Elliott, collector of rates to the Town Commissioners of Black-rock, is a defaulter as such collector to the extent of £2,600; whether the Commissioners, being apprised of Mr. Elliott's defalcation, have privately agreed between themselves to retain him in the position of collector, and have accepted from him a mortgage of £900 upon his house and furniture as security for the money of the township appropriated by him to his own use; whether the Commissioners apprised Mr. Elliott's sureties of the course which they had taken in accepting the mortgage from him, and, in case they did not apprise the sureties and obtain their con-
  132
  sent, whether the course taken has cancelled the bond of the said sureties, and released them from liability under it; whether the Commissioners had the legal power to compound such a matter; and, what course the Local Government Board will take in regard to the position of Mr. Elliott as Poor Rate collector of Rathmines?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I understand from various sources that the position of Mr. Elliott as collector of rates to the Blackrock Town Commissioners has been the subject of inquiry, which is still pending. The matter, therefore, being still sub judice, the Local Government Board do not feel that it would be right for them to take any step, or express any opinion, which would prejudge the case. The Local Government Board will make it their duty to see that the proceedings come forward.

  PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) ACT, 1882 — COMPENSATION FOR MALICIOUS BURNING OF HAY — CASE OF LAURENCE REILEY.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (for Mr. SEXTON)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has made inquiry as to a case in which £60 was awarded to a man named Reiley at the Spring Assizes at Trim, for burning of hay; whether his original claim for £90 was passed at Presentment Sessions, but, on hearing that the ratepayers were holding a meeting to arrange a traverse of the presentment, he went to the meeting and offered to lower the claims from £90 to £50, if they consented not to oppose it, but the ratepayers declined the offer, and instructed counsel to oppose the claim at the Assizes; whether the hay had been burned at mid-day, in a field beside the town of Navan, where a number of men were at work, and the ratepayers' counsel produced before the Grand Jury evidence that the hay had been accidentally set on fire by children, and that Reiley, when he saw it burning, had said—"To —— with it; I will be well paid for it;" whether the Grand Jury gave no heed to the evidence for the ratepayers, and awarded Reiley £60, being £10 more than he had offered to take; whether the ratepayers then arranged to traverse the presentment, and have the case heard, according to usage, before the Judge of Assize and a Jury;

  133
  brought up their witnesses from Navan to Trim, and made all due preparation for the hearing of the case, but the Judge, Chief Justice Morris, returning to the Bench from luncheon with the Grand Jury, asked them if they had heard the case, and, on receiving an affirmative reply, declined to listen to anything on behalf of the ratepayers, and immediately confirmed the award; whether the Judge was authorised by Law to take such a course; and, what means of redress are open to the ratepayers who contested the presentment?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I am informed that Laurence Reiley gave notice of his intention to claim compensation, and his application for £90 was passed by the Presentment Sessions without any objection. Subsequently, at a meeting of the ratepayers it was decided to oppose the claim before the Grand Jury, unless it was reduced to £50. Reiley was present at the meeting, and it did not appear that he consented to accept the amount. The hay was burned at 2 o'clock in the afternoon, and it was alleged that there was evidence that it had been set fire to by children. The Grand Jury, after hearing the evidence on both sides, reduced the award to £60. It was a fact that the ratepayers decided to traverse the presentment before the Assizes; but the Judge, after hearing all the circumstances, refused to allow the traverse. He was informed that the discretion of withholding or allowing permission to proceed with the traverse lay entirely with the Judge. The matter was now closed, and no further proceedings would be instituted.

  ARMY—THE ARMY CLOTHING FACTORY, PIMLICO—COST OF MANUFACTURE.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (for Mr. DAWSON)asked the Secretary of State for War, If his attention has been called to the fact that the cost of making clothing at the Government Factory, Pimlico, is from twenty to fifty per cent. in excess of that paid to contractors, and that the Director of Clothing, in his evidence before the Parliamentary Committee, admitted that there was a loss of £8,000 on the work done the previous year at the Government Factory; also, that the sum of £20,000, voted last year for making up clothing by contract, was
  134
  not so expended, while the amount voted for the "Government Factory" was exceeded; that, in addition to the higher price paid at the Government Factory for making up, a larger quantity of material was used than that issued to contractors?
  MR. BRAND: The cost of making clothing at the Government Factory is not from 20 to 50 per cent in excess of that paid to contractors; indeed, there is every reason to believe that the work is done as cheaply at the Factory as by the trade. The loss of £8,000 mentioned in the evidence of the Director of Clothing had reference to the work in the Factory prior to the re-organization of 1878, and since that period the Factory has been able to compete successfully with the trade. Taking the years 1882–3, 1883–4, the amount voted for making up clothing by contract was largely exceeded, although somewhat less was expended in. the single year 1883–4. In one instance a less quantity of material was used by a contractor, owing principally to garments having been made less than the size roll furnished.

  IRELAND—INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS ACT —DESTITUTE CHILDREN AT ATHY, CO. KILDARE.
  MR. LYNCHasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the action of the Magistrates at Athy petty sessions, county Kildare, on the 4th ultimo, when the Rev. Mathew Doyle, C.C. applied to have two out of a family of ten orphans sent to an industrial school; whether three of the ten children are already in industrial schools, and of six remaining with the widowed mother, the eldest is a cripple, and the youngest a baby, all depending on her for support; whether all the conditions required by the Act of Parliament had been fulfilled; the Rev. Mr. Doyle having sworn that the children had been found begging, had not sufficient guardianship, the mother having to toil day and night for their support; that they were largely dependent upon charity, and that sufficiently destitute already, they would be helplessly so, if the mother were visited by sickness; whether, upon examination of an information by the Rev. Mr. Doyle, the Law Officers declared the objections to sending the children to an industrial school to

  135
  be groundless; whether, subsequently, the local magistrates declared the children might be sent to industrial schools, but only on condition that the payment of five shillings per week for the two children should be made by them other who had just sworn she could not afford to pay three pence; her earnings as a washerwoman being from three shillings to five shillings per week, never exceeding the latter sum; and, whether any steps will be taken to have the orphans sent to an industrial school?
  MR. TREVELYAN: From the Reports submitted to me, it appears that the magistrates, in the exercise of their discretion, refused to commit the children to an industrial school, because they did not think the circumstances to be such as would bring the case within the terms of the Act. It is true that evidence was given that the children begged from the Rev. Mr. Doyle; but he admitted they only did it once, and the Bench did not consider that they could be properly said to be, within the meaning of the Act, "found begging," or "found wandering," or "found destitute." The Law Officers gave no opinion on the subject —no information by the Rev. Mr. Doyle, or other papers in the case, having been submitted to them. On the occasion of a second application for the committal of the children being made, one of the magistrates asked the mother whether, in the event of an order being made, she would be prepared to contribute 5s. a-week for the support of her children; but it does not appear that any such declaration was made by the magistrates as is alleged in the Question. I am not aware that it is intended to take any further steps in the case.

  STATE OF IRELAND—MEETINGS OF THE NATIONAL LEAGUE — INTRUSION OF THE POLICE AT AUGHRIM.
  MR. LYNCHasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, on Sunday the 16th ultimo, Sergeant Blair and Constable Shea, of the Hill Street Sub-District, entered the room in which the members of the Aughrim (county Roscommon) Branch of the Irish National League were engaged in holding a meeting, and, being requested by the president and secretary of the meeting to withdraw, or else to produce their authority for remaining, the sergeant replied that he was acting
  136
  on his own responsibility, that he would not leave except removed by force, and remained with his attendant constable until the close of the proceedings, despite the protest of the members present; whether the sergeant had instructions from his superiors to insist on remaining at the meeting; whether he had instructions to demand, as he did from the secretary, a list of the members of the Branch; whether it was under instructions from his superiors that he went to the wife of the man from whom the room was rented, and told her she was exposing herself to great danger by giving the use of the room to the members of the Branch; and what notice will be taken of the sergeant's action?
  MR. TREVELYAN, in reply, said, he was informed that the presence of the police at that meeting was not objected to. The sergeant stated—"If I am required to withdraw I will do so;" and after a consultation amongst the members present the secretary stated that he might remain, which he accordingly did. He had no instructions to persist in remaining, and he did not do so. He had no instructions to demand the names of the members; but in meeting the president on the road he asked him, had he many members? He did not make use of any such phrase as was alleged in the Question. The circumstances appear to call for no further notice.
  MR. LYNCH (for Mr. SMALL)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Under whose orders does Constable M'Hugh attend the meetings of the Davidstown (county Wexford) branch of the National League; and, is this the same constable who has made charges against men under his orders which were found to be ungrounded?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The constable attended the meeting by the desire of his superior officer, and his presence was not objected to. It is not the case that this constable made charges against two of his men which were unfounded. Two years ago he reported two men under his command for an offence for which they were cautioned by the Inspector General.

  ALLOTMENTS EXTENSION ACT, 1882— HOLY CROSS, CLENT, CHARITY LANDS.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSasked the Vice President of the Privy Council, Whether

  137
  the charity lands of Holy Cross, Clent, come under the provisions of "The Allotments Extension Act, 1882;" whether the trustee has refused the repeated applications of the labourers of the parish to rent these lands; whether the labourers and the Allotments Extension Association have repeatedly applied to the Charity Commissioners for assistance in compelling the trustee to carry out the provisions of the Act; and, whether the Charity Commissioners have received any communications from or on behalf of the trustee, with a view of selling the lands so as to evade the operation of the Act?
  MR. MUNDELLA: The charity lands of Holy Cross, Clent, do, in the opinion of the Charity Commissioners, come under the provisions of the Allotments Extension Act, 1882. The Trustee has not refused the applications of the labourers; but he is old and non-resident, and the Commissioners are taking steps to have new Trustees appointed. In reply to the last Question, the lands being copyhold, it will be necessary that a new tenant should be admitted on the Court rolls. As this will be attended with considerable expense, it has been suggested that a portion of the property should be sold to cover it. There is no desire, I am assured, to evade the operation of the Act. The Commissioners have been in communication with the Trustees of the charity lands in the parish of Adderbury, who are prepared to give effect to the Act in accordance with the decision of the Commissioners. Further information has been asked for as to a portion of the lands which have been leased since the passing of the Act, and this information is awaited. The Inspectors' Reports are of a confidential nature, and cannot be published without detriment to the Public Service.

  EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN)— GENERAL GORDON.
  MR. BOURKE: I wish to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs three Questions, of which I have given him private Notice—The first is, Whether The Times telegram of this morning, stating that General Gordon had sent a telegram to Sir Samuel Baker, giving an account of his position at Khartoum, is authentic; the second Question is, whether the Government can give the House any information
  138
  with respect to the condition of affairs at Khartoum, Shendy, and Berber; and the third is, whether there is any truth in the report that a European Conference is to take place with respect to the affairs of Egypt?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I will answer the Questions of the right hon. Gentleman to the following effect:—As regards the first Question, we have no textual Report from Sir Evelyn Baring corresponding with the text given in The Times of this morning; but Sir Evelyn Baring has sent us a telegram, which appears to contain a very large part of the substance of, and to be in perfect concurrence with, the text of the telegram referred to. We have no reason to suppose that any part of it is otherwise than correct. With regard to the second Question, the answer I have to give is this—that Shendy is surrounded by hostile tribes. With respect to Berber, we do not know that it is surrounded; but very serious apprehensions prevail there as affecting both that place and the route to Khartoum. With regard to Khartoum itself, the telegram of General Gordon contains important information; and that information is in complete concurrence, so far as the question of Gordon's position is concerned, with what reaches us, and has all along reached us, from Sir Evelyn Baring; the general effect being, according to the expression used, that he is hemmed in—that is to say, that there are bodies of hostile troops in the neighbourhood forming more or less of a chain around it. I draw a distinction between that and the town being surrounded, which would bear technically a very different meaning. The supplies in Khartoum are abundant, and there is no apprehension at all of danger. With regard to the third Question of the right hon. Gentleman, I stated, when I last had the honour of addressing the House on Egypt, that Her Majesty's Government had arrived at an important conclusion for themselves with respect to Egyptian finance, and that the House was very well aware that it was impossible to move a step in that important question without complying with the necessity of communication with other Powers. I have nothing material at present to add to that statement; but as soon as there is any substantive information to be given which would interest

  139
  the House the Government will take care to give it.
  MR. BOURKE: One point the right hon. Gentleman has omitted—that is with respect to the massacre which we are told has taken place of persons who attempted to escape from Shendy.
  MR. GLADSTONE: It was not in your Notice.
  MR. BOUKKE: No; but I asked generally as to the state of affairs at Shendy, thinking, of course, the Government would take advantage of the opportunity of stating whether the news of the massacre was true or not.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether the Government are taking any steps whatever to send to General Gordon that help for which, as I understand from the right hon. Gentleman's reply, General Gordon has appealed when he asked whether the millionaires of England and the United States would assist him? Are the Government taking any steps, or making any preparations, to render such assistance?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I think, Sir, the hon. Member must understand that the communication from General Gordon to which we have just referred is a communication of which he has the same knowledge as we have. It is not a communication made to or through us, and I understand it in a sense totally different from that of the hon. Gentleman. General Gordon's testimony is expressed as to the present security of Khartoum, and the plan referred to is one of the many General Gordon is making, and has nothing whatever to do with his security in Khartoum. ["Oh!"] Gentlemen who interrupt me in that way, while answering a Question upon a matter of fact, may have opinions of their own, which they can state; but I state with confidence, and with better means of information than they possess, that it has nothing whatever to do with it. I repeat, upon my responsibility, that we believe it to be beyond all doubt that the plan of General Gordon has nothing whatever to do with the question of his security in Khartoum. With regard to the Question of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bourke), I limited myself to what he put on the Paper; but my noble Friend will read a telegram which will give whatever information we possess.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: In answer to the Question of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bourke) in regard to events at or near Shendy, it does appear that a portion of the garrison, with some of the civilian population of Shendy, left that place with the view of escaping, and that they reached a spot, the name of which appears to be Alieh. There the steamer ran aground; and I regret to say, from the latest information received from the Governor of Berber, that it does appear that they were surrounded and massacred there.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister if he still adheres to the statement he made the other day to the effect that General Gordon is under no inability to leave Khartoum?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have had no information since that statement in any manner bearing on it, or tending to shake it. I should, perhaps, add to what, I stated, in answer to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that what we have heard in regard to Berber and Shendy of course indicates an increase in the difficulty of communication along that particular route.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: May I ask, Sir, whether it is true, as stated by the British Consular Agent at Khartoum, who is also Correspondent of The Times, that there arrived at Berber, on the 10th of April, from Sir Evelyn Baring, an unciphered telegram stating that no English troops would be sent, clearly showing that General Gordon and others faithful to the Government would be thrown over? May I also ask whether General Gordon has notified to the British Government that henceforward he will act on his own judgment and on his own responsibility? Further, I would ask the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, or the Prime Minister, whether the Government will provide arms and transports for a volunteer expedition to relieve General Gordon, if such be sent?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The Question which the hon. Member has asked me as to the unciphered telegram is the only one that I can answer. The Foreign Office have no information whatever with regard to the arrival of this unciphered telegram.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I am sorry to trouble the Prime Minister, but I am anxious to know whether the House is to understand that the Government are still of opinion that the position of General Gordon at Khartoum is one of security, and that General Gordon has no need or desire for assistance or help from the English Government?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am not aware that there was any doubt or ambiguity in the words that I used just now, and likewise on a former occasion. The position of General Gordon is, so far as we know, a position of security; and, in point of fact, it was in a recent telegram that he even used the expression of his being as safe in Khartoum for a couple of months as in Cairo. [An hon. MEMBER: That is dated April l.] No doubt the telegram is dated April 1, and we have some communications from General Gordon since. Here is one of April 8, which you have in the Papers this morning, and which is in complete correspondence with that of April 1. Of course, the question of sending help and assistance to General Gordon will relate to some totally different state of things.
  MR. ONSLOW: May I ask the Prime Minister whether the Conference which Her Majesty's Government proposed to the Great Powers would have before it only the financial aspect of the Egyptian Question, or general questions relating to the administration of the country?
  MR. GLADSTONE: We have not arrived yet at a state of things in which we can say that a Conference will be held. When anything in the nature of such a conclusion is arrived at, we shall lose no time in communicating it to the House.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Does the Government propose to lay any Papers upon the Table with reference to the mission of General Gordon?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Yes, Sir; Papers will be laid on the Table very shortly.
  MR. RITCHIE: I wish to ask how the Prime Minister can reconcile his statement respecting the security of Khartoum with the passage in the telegram from General Gordon to Sir Samuel Baker—
  "If the loyal way in which the troops and townspeople here have held to me under these circumstances of great difficulty were known,
  142
  and the way in which my lot is involved in theirs, I am sure this appeal would be considered to he fully justified. I should be mean, indeed, if I neglected any step for their safety."
  MR. GLADSTONE: The Question of the hon. Gentleman rather involves matter of argument than of fact; but I again say that I interpret—and I know that I am justified in interpreting—the appeal of General Gordon to have reference to the interest which the loyal population of Khartoum have in the general question of the Soudan; and it is in contemplation of very much more than the mere security, especially the present security, of Khartoum, that General Gordon has sent this message to Sir Samuel Baker. He may be contemplating I know not what in reference to the ultimate safety of Khartoum; but of that I cannot speak. His appeal for assistance has no reference whatever to any danger now over-hanging Khartoum.
  SIR JOHN HAY: I wish to ask if it is true that Sir Evelyn Baring is coming home; and, if so, who is going to look after British affairs in Egypt in his absence?
  MR. GLADSTONE: In consequence of the burden of Sir Evelyn Baring's duties, an arrangement was made some time ago to send a competent gentleman—Mr. Egerton—to Egypt to assist him. Sir Evelyn Baring will probably leave for England to-day or to-morrow, and in his absence Mr. Egerton will discharge his duties.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMS: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether it is a fact that General Gordon has requested the Consular Agent of the Government to leave Khartoum, and has stated that the only means of doing so would be by Equatorial Africa and the. Congo?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Will the hon. Gentleman give Notice of that Question?
  BARON HENRY DE WORMS: I will do so.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR STAFFOED NORTHCOTE: I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister for some information with regard to the Order of Public Business, and whether it is pro-

  143
  posed to take a Morning Sitting tomorrow?
  MR. GLADSTONE: We propose to have a Morning Sitting to-morrow at 2 o'clock. We will then proceed with the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill. On Thursday my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make his Financial Statement.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: The Representation of the People Bill stands for Thursday.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Yes; but we propose to take it on Monday.
  MR. GORST: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman can give us any information with regard to the second reading of the Merchant Shipping Bill?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The Government will make arrangements for the second reading of that Bill as soon as possible.

NOTICE OF QUESTION.

  WESTERN PACIFIC—DEPORTATION OF FRENCH CONVICTS.
  MR. GORSTgave Notice that he would on Thursday ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can make any statement to the House as to the present position of the negotiations with the French Government in relation to the deportation of criminals to the Western Pacific; and, whether any communications have passed between Her Majesty's Government and the German Government upon the subject?
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: May I ask whether Her Majesty's Government has received a Note from the French Government on the subject?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: NO Note has been received.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.—COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  SCOTLAND—PROCURATORS FISCAL.

    RESOLUTION.
    DR. CAMERON, in rising to call attention to the system of Public Prosecutions in Scotland; and to move—
    144
    "That Procurators Fiscal should be prohibited from acting as factors or agents managing landed estates, and, wherever possible, from engaging in private practice as solicitors within the districts over which their Commissions extend,"
    said, two years ago he obtained a Return of those Procurators Fiscal who devoted themselves solely to their official duties, and of those who combined private practice with their public work; and he found that in all Scotland there were only eight who confined themselves solely to their official duties, and as many as 44 who did not do so, and of those 44, 23 acted as agents in the management of landed estates. Those facts, and others which he had learned in connection with them, had convinced him of the urgent necessity of some reform, and he took that opportunity of bringing the matter forward. In England the theory of the law was that it was the duty and the right of the person damnified by crime to prosecute the criminal. The evidence against him was laid publicly before him. The prisoner was committed after public investigation. A Grand Jury had to be convinced of his guilt; and when he was tried before a petty jury there must be unanimity in order to get a conviction. The Scotch theory was perfectly different. According to that theory, it was the duty of the State to prosecute crime and punish criminals, and State officials were the proper persons to judge whether crime should be prosecuted or not. If it was considered desirable the State prosecuted at the public expense. Private prosecutions were discouraged in every possible way, and consequently they were hardly ever heard of. In order to enable the State prosecutors to prosecute in the public interest, they were intrusted with powers which to Englishmen seemed most arbitrary and inquisitorial, and which Lord Moncreiff had admitted would be intolerable to the people of Scotland were it not for the direct responsibility of the Lord Advocate, the head of the Scottish Criminal Department, to Parliament. The party suspected of crime, having been arrested, was brought before the Sheriff for examination. His examination was private; no friend or legal adviser was allowed to communicate with him. He was told that he need not answer the questions which were put to him unless he liked, and he was warned that if he did answer them his answers

    145
    might be used against him on his trial. But his refusal to answer questions put to him might also be used against him. When he was tried his declaration was not taken down in his own words, but written at the dictation of the Procurator Fiscal or the Sheriff, and he was asked to sign it. He was examined again and again until he was committed, which might not be until eight days after his arrest. During those eight days he might again and again be privately examined. During all that time he was not allowed to communicate with his friends or law advisers. In strict law, he believed, witnesses in criminal cases ought to be examined before the Sheriff; but, as a matter of fact, that was never done. They were examined privately by the Procurator Fiscal, who made abstracts of their evidence in his own way, and those abstracts were called precognitions. Those precognitions were submitted to the Sheriff, and on those precognitions thus taken the prisoner was committed. In the more serious cases the precognitions were forwarded to the Crown Office in Edinburgh, where the cases were considered, and directed how to be disposed of. Now, up to that point, the case against the accused was absolutely secret; and if he were discharged, an absolute secret it remained to the end of the chapter. Before the prisoner was brought to trial he was served with an indictment setting forth the charges against him, and also the articles or productions to be produced. On the other hand, he was allowed no access to the depositions of the witnesses who were to be brought against him; and if he wished to make any special defence he was required to give notice of it to the Crown some time in advance. Finally, he was tried before a jury—a bare majority of that jury sufficed for a conviction. Now, he was not going to find a word of fault with the system. On the contrary, he thought that in theory the Scotch law was infinitely better than the theory on which the English Criminal Law was based. But to many of the details of the system the strongest objection had been taken by high authorities. Lord Young, one of the most eminent of the Scottish Judges, said that it was neither right in itself, nor required in the interests of justice, that any person should be committed to
    146
    prison on evidence taken behind his back, not even in the presence of a magistrate; and he stigmatized it as a blot on the criminal system of Scotland. With others of his fellow-Commissioners, he declared that it was neither fair, nor in the interests of justice, to deny the prisoner access to friends until he had been examined before a magistrate. He (Dr, Cameron) was not going to find fault even with these details; and he was describing the system simply to show the extraordinary power intrusted to the hands of the Public Prosecutors in Scotland, and the absolute necessity, in order that public confidence might be retained, of intrusting those powers only to men who were absolutely above suspicion, and in. whose impartiality the public could have the most perfect confidence. The Procurator Fiscal was the sole substitute they had in Scotland for the Coroner in England. The Public Prosecutor decided whether a prosecution was to be proceeded with or abandoned; whether a minor plea was to be accepted, or the graver one insisted on. He also moved for sentence after the verdict had been, given. If a man had been killed, with the Public Prosecutor it lay whether the slaughterer should be allowed to get off scot-free—as in the case of a woman who was shot in a sale-room in Edinburgh, by a man with a loaded revolver, before the eyes of her husband, from whom he had received a letter of bitter complaint—or whether he should be tried for manslaughter. If a ploughman snared a hare, or a schoolboy wrote a threatening letter to a man who might be the Procurator Fiscal's client, with him it rested whether their cases were to be treated in the same manner as that of the slaughtered woman to which he had referred; or whether the whole powers of the country should be brought to bear for the purpose of bringing them to justice. Such being the case, the office should be fenced round with precautions, making it, at least, as much, above suspicion as were the Judges and Sheriffs of Scotland. Now, was that the case? Quite the contrary. He ventured to say that no class of officials in Scotland were regarded with as widespread suspicion as were the Procurators Fiscal, and against so many sins of omission and commission none were charged. A couple of years ago a Select Committee of the House was appointed

    147
    to consider a Bill which he introduced, and which had since become law. Under that Bill it was determined, in certain, cases, that prosecutions should take place before the Sheriff; and the question arose, who was to prosecute? Now, under the Scottish law the Procurator Fiscal was evidently the natural person to prosecute; but one witness after another gave evidence that if that duty were to fall on the Procurator Fiscal it would never be performed, and that it would be a dead letter; and accordingly the Committee relegated the duty to private prosecutors. Some years ago a law was passed specifying certain bankruptcy offences in Scotland as crimes, and the duty of prosecuting was naturally cast upon the Procurator Fiscal. Now, he had had scores of complaints regarding crimes under this Act, which had been publicly avowed and proved in the examinations of bankrupts before the Sheriffs; and yet, although they had been reported to the Procurator Fiscal, no proceedings had been taken. He had met with similar complaints in regard to almost every other species of crime, from manslaughter downwards. As he had mentioned manslaughter, he would illustrate that by facts contained in a letter which he received only the other day from a very intelligent medical man in Glasgow; and he produced the case the more readily, because it illustrated what was a notorious cause of inefficiency in the administration of justice in grave cases in Scotland. His correspondent was called suddenly to visit a young woman, from 16 to 17 years of age, who lay at the point of death. She survived his arrival only 20 minutes, and in the interval a medical friend was called in. Both those gentlemen thought the case was one eminently demanding inquiry, and that a post mortem was asked for. The girl had been at work only the day before. She had complained of ill-treatment at the hands of the person with whom she lived. She had taken a medicine, for which another medicine might have been substituted either by accident or design. There was no evidence whatever of the real cause of death. They reported the matter to the Procurator Fiscal, and urged the necessity of holding a post mortem examination. Some police inquiry was made, but no post mortem examination was
    148
    held, and this woman's death was registered by the authorities in these terms —"Cause of death not ascertained; probably natural causes; no medical attendant;" and the woman was allowed to be buried. Now, why was there no post mortem or proper inquiry held in this case? It was a notorious fact that Procurators Fiscal had the very greatest difficulty in recovering expenditure which they might make in connection with post mortem examinations. He did not know whether the Treasury was to be blamed for that, or the Crown Office in Edinburgh; but it was notorious that this parsimony offered an obstacle to the proper investigation of serious cases in Scotland, and it had been repeatedly commented on in the public Press of the country. But if one asked why, in ordinary cases, the Procurator Fiscal did not take up cases which he ought to do, one was told that in olden times it was customary to pay Procurators Fiscal by fees on convictions. It was thought that that system caused many of them to prosecute vindictively for fees, and the system was changed, and they were now paid by fixed salary. Since then, it was said, they did not give themselves more trouble than they could avoid. Now, although the suspicion of a desire to avoid trouble might attach to Procurators Fiscal who confined themselves to their official duties, as well as to those who practised privately, there could, in the case of a Procurator Fiscal who devoted himself to his official duties, be no suspicion that he neglected his official duties in order to attend to private business, or that he neglected to prosecute because the prosecution might give offence to some wealthy client; there could be no suspicion that he undertook that prosecution to please a client, or for the purpose of obtaining information to be used in his private practice. Now, it was quite otherwise with Procurators Fiscal who practised as solicitors and acted as land agents. They might be innocent or guilty; but their position caused them to be suspected by outsiders with whose interests they interfered. Especially was this the case with Procurators Fiscal who, besides private practice, also held positions as factors, and confidential agents, and advisers to landlords. They were commonly regarded by the peasantry in the Highlands as objects of dislike and

    149
    suspicion. Being frequently brought into collision with the tenantry in their capacity as partizans of the landlords, it was but natural that the peasantry should regard with distrust and want of confidence their impartiality in the discharge of their public duties. In fact, they had no belief in the impartiality of Procurators Fiscal who filled such manifold and frequently conflicting functions; and from the present state of popular feeling in the Highlands there was great danger, unless a proper reform was introduced in this matter, of their running the risk of impressing the minds of the population of the Highlands with the same sympathy with lawlessness and law-breakers which afflicted other parts of the Empire. And that this combination of the duties of Procurators Fiscal with the work of private practitioners gave rise to widespread suspicion and dissatisfaction there could be no doubt. In illustration, he would take first the case of the Procurator Fiscal of Aberdeen, and he selected him, the more readily as he did not personally know that gentleman in the least, and further because, judging from the fact that he was one of the best paid, he presumed he must be one of the most respectable of his class. That gentleman, in addition to being Procurator Fiscal, was also allowed to carry on private practice. He drew £800 a-year salary from the Imperial Exchequer, and he got besides £200 a-year from local funds, and he was allowed private practice as well. His first complaint regarding that gentleman was in a Memorial which had been sent to the Home Secretary in reference to an alarming outbreak of disease or illness which had occurred in connection with the milk supply distributed from, the Old Mill Reformatory dairy farm in Aberdeen; 322 persons supplied with that milk were attacked with illness, and of these three died. The inmates of the reformatory, who were said to have been supplied with the same milk, escaped without illness. An investigation was held into the matter, in the first place, by the Directors, and the Procurator Fiscal of Aberdeen acted as the private professional agent of these Directors. The result of that investigation was not made known. Then another investigation into the subject was made by the Procurator Fiscal himself in the public interest. The result of his investigation
    150
    was that nothing was done, and that, according to the statement of one of the sufferers, he expressed himself convinced that the occurrence of the outbreak was not connected with the milk at all, but was due to an epidemic from, other causes which had broken out amongst the wealthy classes in Aberdeen. Lastly, an investigation into the matter was ordered and held under the Public Health Act, and the same gentleman was again the professional agent for that inquiry. Well, nothing definite transpired from that investigation; but the Memorial to which he (Dr. Cameron) had referred, and which had been signed not only by 220 of the sufferers, but also endorsed by members of the leading Medical Societies in Aberdeen, pointed out that, according to the books of the Institution, the quantity of milk supplied was vastly more than that produced for such supply in the dairy, and that, therefore, adulteration must have taken place. Under these circumstances, it was most important that a prosecution for adulteration should have been instituted; but nothing of the sort had ever taken place. No wonder the Memorialists demanded another and an impartial inquiry, grounding their demand upon the very equivocal position of the Procurator Fiscal in connection with the three investigations which had taken place. The second complaint had come to him in an official letter from the Aberdeen City Parochial Board. It appeared that a convict named Brown had been discharged from Perth Prison on a ticket-of-leave. Some point having been raised regarding the man's sanity, the Inspector of Poor had him examined by five medical men, and not one of them, certified the discharged convict as insane. But the Procurator Fiscal got two medical men to certify insanity, and the man was sent to a lunatic asylum. In connection with this the Procurator Fiscal sent in a bill for £40—£12 6s. 4d. of which went into his own pocket. Now, people argued that if Brown was a dangerous lunatic, he should not have been discharged on ticket-of-leave; and the Parochial Board thought that these investigations would be more satisfactory if the Procurator Fiscal were not allowed to make money in connection with them. And the lunatics themselves did not like the business either. One man who had had the misfortune to suffer from tem-

    151
    porary mental derangement, which necessitated his removal for a time to a lunatic asylum, found upon returning home a hill against him by the Procurator Fiscal several times larger than what his treatment and cure in the asylum had cost; and he (Dr. Cameron) had been informed by the Chairman of the Parochial Board that the same Procurator Fiscal had, in connection with similar cases, sent in other bills to the Board amounting to some £97 in the course of less than a year. He thought he had shown that in Aberdeen a large portion of the respectable inhabitants had reasonable cause for suspicion as to the manner in which the Procurator Fiscal administered his functions. The Medical Faculty, the parochial authorities, and the solicitors had reason for dissatisfaction. As to the dissatisfaction of the solicitors, an advocate or solicitor wrote him that on the day previous he had occasion to prepare a petition in connection with a breach of an interim interdict which had been granted against a person, of whom the Procurator Fiscal was the agent. It was necessary that the formal concurrence of the Procurator Fiscal should be appended to the document, and a clerk was sent over to his office for his signature. The clerk noticed that he was detained in getting change when he was paying the small fee. On crossing the street to the Sheriff Clerk's office to present the petition and obtain an extract, he found that he had been forestalled, and that a caveat had been lodged against extracting judgment. The gentleman wrote that it appeared one of the Fiscal's partners had utilized his clerk's detention while obtaining change to be beforehand with him at the Sheriff Clerk's, thus lodging the caveat and preventing the immediate remedy which his client would have obtained. This appeared to be precisely one of those cases where there was no earthly excuse for a continuance of the present state of matters. In Glasgow, Dundee, Paisley, and other places, the necessity had been recognized of preventing Procurators Fiscal from engaging in other than their official work. In Aberdeen the Procurator Fiscal, as he had already stated, received £1,000, besides being allowed his private practice; and he had shown the results of such combination, so far as the public interest was concerned. But the evil results of such a system
    152
    were far worse in country districts, for there the lawyers belonged generally to one class of society, and the criminals, whom it was their duty to prosecute, belonged to another. The crimes were mostly class crimes—poaching cases, petty thefts, disturbances arising out of evictions, &c.; and the Procurators Fiscal were the land agents and friends and legal advisers of the landlords. A man had only to be appointed Fiscal to obtain such advantages over his fellow-solicitors as to secure all the outlying business. He did not say that the landed proprietors employed him because they thought it might be useful to have him on their side in case occasion should arise; but they certainly did employ him because he travelled about the country in the course of his official business, and could thus, when in the neighbourhood, attend to their private business while travelling at the public expense. If this were denied, he had received numerous complaints from country solicitors on the point, and one of them sent him a letter in which the reason for appointing the Procurator Fiscal agent to an important Highland estate in preference to his correspondent, who was also a candidate for the post, was distinctly stated to be that his official duties so frequently called him to the district. They monopolized all sorts of business. One correspondent complained that a certain Procurator Fiscal was not only a practising solicitor, member of a firm which managed a large number of estates, but clerk and treasurer to a Road Trust, secretary to a Parochial Board, assistant to an assessor in the valuation of lands, sub-collector of county assessments, and a bank agent. Another correspondent called attention to another gentleman on the list, who was not only Procurator Fiscal, practising solicitor, and land agent, but was, or had been, clerk to four school boards and secretary to a Harbour Commission. No wonder these gentlemen had often no time to attend to their official duties, and that they were often obliged to delegate the investigation of criminal matters to young clerks, and allow accused persons to lie in prison longer than was at all necessary. From a Highland county he had a complaint last year that, a couple of months previously, two cases of infanticide had occurred in the district, in one of which the body of the child had been

    153
    found in an ashpit; and that another case had been reported in another part of the county. He had put a Question to the Lord Advocate on the subject, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman answered nearly three months after the date of the occurrence; and from that it appeared that precognitions had not been sent in to the Crown Office till after the appearance of the Question on the Paper. The Procurator Fiscal in that case figured in the Return as a practising solicitor and a land agent. A couple of years ago, his hon. Friend the Member for Inverness (Mr. Fraser-Mackintosh) called attention to the fact that in the case of the Loch Carron evictions, which resulted in rioting, the eviction proceedings had been carried through by a gentleman who was no other than the Procurator Fiscal, who might be called upon to prosecute the rioters. Only a few months ago, he (Dr. Cameron) had had his attention called to another case, in which 41 eviction summonses had been taken out by a land agent who was also Fiscal in the district. Happily, the evictions were not carried out; and the evils of such a system did not, therefore, receive practical illustration. But the people naturally distrusted the administration of justice under such a system. Anyone who had watched the proceedings of the Royal Commission on the Highlands and Islands must have observed numerous instances of this; and he should be greatly disappointed if a recommendation that Fiscals be not allowed to act as agents for landed proprietors were not embodied among the recommendations of the Commissioners. With one case which had arisen out of the proceedings of the Commission he proposed to conclude his illustrations of the evils of the present system. General Burroughs, proprietor of the Island of Roussay, in the Orkneys, took such umbrage at the evidence given by the delegates from his tenantry before the Commission, that he point-blank refused to give any assurance to the Commissioners that no one of his tenants should be evicted in consequence of the evidence given by them before the Commission. And he was as good as his word, for he afterwards proceeded to evict two of the delegates who had given evidence. ["Oh, oh!"] He (Dr. Cameron) was not going to say anything of General Burroughs,
    154
    who, no doubt, had acted within his legal rights, and who had, by this mode of proceeding, unintentionally rendered great service to the cause of land reform in Scotland. But his actions were, of course, unpopular; and he received a threatening letter, of which he complained to the Procurator Fiscal, who was also his private agent. That gentleman (the Procurator Fiscal) set out in one of Her Majesty's gunboats with the Sheriff and the chief of police to the Island, and then set about the investigation of the case by examining a boy named Leonard; having before doing so obtained also a warrant for the arrest of a boy named Mainland, son of a tenant. In examining the lad Leonard, a lad of 14 years of age, son of one of the evicted tenants, according to the boy's own account, the Procurator Fiscal asked him to write, to see, he said, if the lad was a good or a bad writer. The lad wrote half-an-hour or so, and filled a page and a-half of large paper. Then the Fiscal said something about his being a good writer; but he had been so frightened that he was glad to get away. The lad said he had been asked to write some bad expressions, which he at first hesitated to do, but was too frightened to refuse. He did not know, he said, why he had been asked to write; but he had heard afterwards that General Burroughs had received a threatening letter, and that they were after him. He (Dr. Cameron) had addressed a Question to the Lord Advocate on this subject; and the explanation given by the Fiscal was that, having been satisfied himself of the lad's innocence of the crime by his precognition, he had asked him to write certain sentences from the threatening letter, in order to confirm his impression of the boy's innocence. Now, it appeared to him (Dr. Cameron) that this official explanation was most suspicious and objectionable. If the boy was suspected of guilt, why was he not examined before the Sheriff? What business was it of the Procurator to extract corroborative proof of the boy's innocence? For whose satisfaction did he do it? Was it for the satisfaction of his client, General Burroughs? Under the circumstances, one could not wonder that the peasantry of Orkney and their sympathizers all through Scotland believed that the Procurator had made a most indefensible attempt to entrap this

    155
    frightened boy into making a confession of guilt in the interest of his employer, General Burroughs. Now, the other boy (Mainland) was arrested in another Island, and during his passage to Kirk-wall, and prior to his examination, had been kept 20 hours without food. He was submitted to an examination of four hours' duration. He was, among other matters, asked about the proceedings that had taken place at a crofters' meeting, and—according to his own statement—what had been said there about the laird, to which he replied that he did not remember. The Fiscal, he said, thereupon got very angry, and spoke in a loud, threatening manner, striking the desk violently with his fist. He put the same question to the boy several times, to which the lad gave the same answer. Now, this was according to the statement of the boy. It might be quite untrue, just as it might be untrue that the Fiscal had urged him to answer certain questions, and said that if he did not it would be the worse for him. But he (Dr. Cameron) did say that the examination, to his mind, would have appeared much more satisfactory if the examination of the boy had been conducted with less secrecy, and by some other person than a Procurator Fiscal, the agent of a proprietor who had displayed so much vindictiveness and irascibility in connection with the case. The Procurator Fiscal of Perth received £950 per annum from the Imperial Exchequer, and £100 locally; the Procurators of Falkirk and Stirling received each £800, in addition to sums from local funds; and of 38 Procurators Fiscal also allowed to carry on practice, whose salaries were given in the Estimates, 16 drew £500 or upwards, and 28 £300 or upwards, the average of the 10 lowest in official salary being £160. £1,400 additional would raise the salary of each of these to £300, and £2,000 to £350 each, and this in addition to their receipts from local funds; and that would be a larger income than the income enjoyed by country clergymen and other professional men in the country districts in Scotland. In fact, to put this matter on a satisfactory footing in Scotland, what was wanted was not expense, but reorganization. Let the Government recast the whole system. Since the establishment of railways and the electric telegraph, it would be a very easy matter to
    156
    combine several small districts under one man, who might work in conjunction with a Commissioner, to deal with cases of extreme urgency. Cut down extravagant salaries where now paid, and there would be a surplus to deal with. Promote men who were the lowest paid, but who showed an aptitude for the work, to the higher posts, and that would afford a motive for activity and energy, which, unfortunately, did not now exist. Take long service into account as a claim for retiring allowances, as in the case of Judges. There would then be found no difficulty in obtaining a better class of men than were appointed at present. All this might be done, he believed, with very slight additional expense; but even if a little additional expense were required in order to remove from the administration of Criminal Law in Scotland a blemish which interfered with its efficiency, and which alienated public confidence and sympathy, still Scotland was entitled to it. Scotland was more heavily taxed in proportion to its wealth than any other division of the United Kingdom. Scotch administration cost little. There was no hankering, among Scottish Representatives, after useless subsidies. But to whatever money might be necessary to secure the administration of justice freely, impartially, and in a manner that would commend itself to the public confidence, they felt they had a right, which he believed the Central Government would be the very first to admit. He had, however, expressed his conviction that little expenditure would be required if reorganization was properly set about; and, in conclusion, he begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he had very great pleasure in seconding the Motion. If he were to criticize the speech of his hon. Friend, he would say that by addressing himself, not to the use, but to the abuse of the Scotch system, he was afraid the hon. Gentleman had given the enemy occasion to blaspheme, as it might be thought that the whole system was bad. He entirely disagreed with that view. He though that the Scotch system was an excellent system; but it was liable to the abuses which had been pointed out. The question was a most important one, both in its relation to the administration of local affairs in Scotland and as regarded juris-

    157
    diction affecting a wider area. It seemed to him a very extraordinary thing that, both in the House and outside, those people who ought to know something of the British Empire were extraordinarily ignorant of the Scotch system of Criminal Law. He thought he might claim to have had a very considerable experience of criminal procedure in various parts of the world; and his experience showed that the Scotch criminal system, when not abused, was the very best system with which he was acquainted. His personal acquaintance with the system was a favourable one. In the county of Fife, where they had Procurators Fiscal who were public servants, and not engaged in private practice, the system had worked admirably; but, unfortunately, as his hon. Friend had stated, the machinery for carrying out the Scotch system had not been developed and increased in proportion to the needs of the country, and the consequence was that in some cases there was great deficiency, and in others great abuses had arisen. Under those circumstances, he thought his hon. Friend had made out a case showing there was great reason for want of confidence in many of these functionaries, who were not only public servants, but were engaged at the same time in private practice. A functionary charged with such delicate duties as a Procurator Fiscal had to deal with ought to be removed from any suspicion of partiality, and it was in order to secure this result that his hon. Friend had brought this question forward. He thought his hon. Friend was quite right in saying that it was impossible that they could longer submit to have these delicate public functions exercised by a sort of make-shift, by a functionary who was in the nature of a half-mongrel functionary or half-private practitioner. By a good system of re-organization these evils could be cured without great expense to the public purse. People in Scotland were not desirous to get more from the public purse than was absolutely necessary in the interests of justice and good order. They did not want subsidies for this, that, and the other thing that was unnecessary; but they did think they were entitled to have good justice, and those establishments necessary to secure good justice. While it was necessary
    158
    for the Treasury to restrain the demands; of various Departments of the public administration, they should avoid a cheese-paring policy. They should take a discriminating view of their functions, and, above all, steer clear of being pennywise and pound-foolish. This country was not so poor and over-taxed that they could not give the small sum necessary to put the administration of justice on a proper footing. Millions of money were spent on military expeditions upon the slightest pretence, to the detriment of all other outlays, however just and reasonable. He agreed with his hon. Friend that it would be possible to have a good official functionary for a district, by which a number of smaller men might be dispensed with; and it might also be possible to unite the office of Procurator Fiscal with other public offices, and thus avoid the necessity for the private practice which, as had been shown, was apt to produce a suspicion of partiality. It was quite true that Scotland was more heavily taxed than any other part of the United Kingdom. It was also true that the Returns did not show this; but the reason was that an enormous amount of taxation was from London, which was just as much the capital of Scotland as of England. England would do well to adopt the Scotch criminal system, instead of maintaining the miserable system of public prosecution supposed to be now established. If this were done Scotland would not grudge her share of the cost. With respect to commercial frauds, he was inclined to think the Scotch system at the present time was not sufficient; but if Procurators Fiscal were put on a better footing than they were, it would be found that their dealings with fraud would be more efficient than they could be now. He looked forward to the time when there would be a general Criminal Code applicable to all parts of the country.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "Procurators Fiscal should be prohibited from acting as factors or agents managing landed estates, and, wherever possible, from engaging in private practice as solicitors within the districts over which their Commissions extend,"—(Dr. Cameron,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. MACFARLANEsaid, he was very glad that his hon. Friend had brought this question forward; but he could have wished that before it was discussed the Return promised by the Lord Advocate had been laid on the Table with respect to Sheriffs and Sheriffs' Clerks, his object in moving for that Return being to show that the abuses complained of were not confined to Procurators Fiscal. He did not desire to go into the minute details of his hon. Friend; but he wished to point out to the Government that the system in Scotland of Procurators Fiscal, Sheriffs' Clerks, or other officials acting as landlords' agents was at the root of half the difficulties arising in Scotland. If this system had not existed, he did not believe the atrocious oppression that had been perpetrated in Scotland in the name of the law would have been possible. By this corrupt and rotten system the landlords were able to carry on their oppression in any manner they chose, and it was an absolute barrier to the poor obtaining justice. The poor ignorant people being served with notice of eviction by the Procurator Fiscal, as the agent of the landlord, abstained from appealing to the law for protection, not that the law would have given them much protection even if they had appealed. He could tell the Lord Advocate that there was a spirit rising in Scotland upon this subject that would not be easily quelled, and in the City of Glasgow, a few days ago, he saw a part of that spirit. It was a spirit he did not wish to see raised in Scotland or anywhere else; but if they wanted to put down that spirit, and obtain peace and prevent Communism, they must do justice. It was their injustice that was bringing about that spirit. There was not a more law-abiding people than the people of Scotland; but he believed, if they could get the evidence of the cases of oppression perpetrated by Scotch lairds on their own people, the House would be shocked, and it would exceed in atrocity and enormity almost anything that had been perpetrated in Ireland, which was certainly saying a good deal. But there was no public opinion in Scotland. The people were isolated,
    160
    and were thus prevented from combining for self-defence, and they had been trampled upon in consequence. He was anxious to hear the defence of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate, and what he was going to propose in a practical shape to put an end to this atrocious system; because, as he had said before, there was a spirit rising in the Island of Skye which it would be hard to suppress without bloodshed, and if there was bloodshed in Scotland the right hon. and learned Gentleman knew the consequences. He hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman would deal with this question in a serious spirit, and do something to check this movement that was rising and increasing every day, and which might soon be a very serious embarrassment to the Government.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he thought the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) had done great good in bringing forward this subject. The Lord Advocate would be strengthened very much by this debate in carrying out the reforms which were needed. He would like the right hon. and learned Gentleman to state the facts connected with the Procurator Fiscal of Aberdeen, to whom the hon. Member for Glasgow had referred. He was an official who was highly esteemed, and in whom great confidence had been shown.
    MR. DALRYMPLEsaid, he agreed with the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Sir George Balfour) that the subject was of great importance; but the Motion did not require the kind of support which it received from the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Macfarlane), who imported into the discussion a great variety of topics which really had very little to do with the subject. This was not the occasion to inveigh against the Land Laws of Scotland, nor, indeed, to refer to the excitement which prevailed in some parts of the Western Highlands, with which, possibly, the hon. Member might have had something to do. He agreed with the hon. and gallant Member for Kincardineshire (Sir George Balfour) that the hon. Member for Glasgow had done good service in bringing this question forward, and he also agreed very much with what the Motion proposed. He thought, however, that in recent appointments there had been a stipulation that Procurators

    161
    Fiscal should not take private practice, and that was a step in the direction of the present Motion. He was afraid that there would be a difficulty in cases where those officials received only small salaries if they were not to be allowed to take private practice. It would also be an evil if a lower class of men were appointed to fill these offices; but even such cases might be met by the suggestion of giving a Procurator Fiscal several districts in common. The fact that the Procurator Fiscal was engaged in private practice and employed as a land agent might render his task a difficult one; but he (Mr. Dalrymple) could not admit that the result was of the kind that had been described. It had been said that a Procurator Fiscal so engaged might be too ready to proceed against persons on account of any offence; but his impression was that the result of such business relations was apt to be that crime was not proceeded against enough, rather than that it was proceeded against with too great celerity. Whatever might be the state of matters in particular districts, he was of opinion that, as far as possible, the Procurators Fiscal should devote themselves to their public duties; and he trusted that that would be the view taken by the Lord Advocate.
    MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSHsaid, he thought the hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow deserved credit for bringing forward this Motion. Personally, he had for many years taken a great interest in it; and in 1877, on the Sheriffs' Court Bill, he moved an Amendment in the direction of his hon. Friend's Motion. That Amendment the House divided upon in his absence; but it was, although lost, nevertheless supported by a majority of the Scottish Members. He was quite aware that it was stated on that occasion that there was difficulty in confining a Fiscal to his duties as prosecutor, owing to the expense which would be incurred in the payment of larger salaries. No doubt, some years ago a Royal Commission reported against such a proposal; but a very considerable minority on that Commission were of opinion that that circumstance should not be allowed to stand in the way of the change. As the Report of the Commission on the Highlands and Islands had been laid upon the Table of the House, although it was not yet in the hands of Members, he thought he was entitled to refer to it
    162
    so far as to say that the Commission which sat last year found it necessary to touch in their Report upon this particular point, and by a very large majority, indeed, they reported that Procurators Fiscal should be strictly confined to their duties. He trusted the Lord Advocate would look at this matter seriously, as the speech of the hon. Member for Buteshire (Mr. Dalrymple) showed that it was not a Party question. The time, he thought, had come when the Government must take up this question by deciding it as a whole. It was not, he thought, necessary to have a Procurator Fiscal in each county. An efficient person might be appointed to a certain district, and deserving men could have their positions improved by transfer from minor to more important districts. He thought they were entitled to call upon the Lord Advocate to give a very explicit answer as to what the Government intended to do. If they did not obtain such an answer, the hon. Member for Glasgow was bound, by a Division, to test the opinion of the Scottish Members.
    SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, that he did not altogether agree with all that had been said by the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Macfarlane), and neither could he endorse some of the observations which fell from the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron). A main principle of the Motion of the hon. Member, however, was one which must commend itself to the House. It was most desirable, wherever it was possible, that Procurators should be paid entirely by salaries, and not by private practice. The question was a practical and financial one, as well as one of area; but he had doubts as to whether the proposal in the Motion could be carried out in every case, both on account of the area of the district and the salary to be given. He hoped the Lord Advocate would be able to tell them that the object they had in view, if not entirely, would to a large degree be entertained. With regard to General Burroughs, he thought it was a matter of regret that he had refused to give a promise to the Commission that he would take no steps against any tenants who came forward as witnesses. In one case that had been brought forward against General Burroughs the man was not a tenant at all, but merely the relation of a

    163
    tenant who had been allowed to remain on.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): There can be no doubt of the importance of the question that has been raised by this Motion; but I scarcely think it will be expected that I should traverse the earlier part of my hon. Friend's address, in which he entered into, or touched upon, some of the more general questions arising as between public and private prosecutions. We know that that is a very vexed question; but, I think, on the whole, we in Scotland prefer our own system. Of course, that system is not perfect; but the statement I have just made will have general assent. I should scarcely have thought it necessary to say this much had it not been for some language which fell from the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Macfarlane) in regard to that system. The system which prevails in Scotland, I believe, not only leads to the detection of crime more effectually than the system which prevails in the South, but it affords very important safeguards to the innocent. We have in Scotland prosecutions conducted by responsible public officials; and inquiries which are carried out, not by any means with the object of obtaining a conviction, right or wrong, but for the purpose of obtaining full information in the first place, and of seeking a conviction only if the responsible authorities are satisfied that the accused are really guilty. Each case is examined in a judicial spirit; and no proceedings are directed to be taken except in cases where it is believed there is guilt, and where there is a reasonable prospect of that guilt being established by evidence. Undoubtedly, a very important protection is thus thrown around persons who may have become the victims of suspicion, or of charges which prove to be unfounded. On that point I think there is great superiority in the Scotch system. I do not go into the matter of declarations, which my hon. Friend touched upon; but that does seem to me to be a very important feature of our system, because it gives an accused person, as soon as he is apprehended and put under charge, an opportunity of saying anything he chooses, but he is not compelled to speak. An opportunity is offered to him to say anything he has to say; and I well know from experience that this not infrequently results in
    164
    innocent persons, when they tell what is a true story, which is immediately investigated, being set at liberty. No doubt, it does sometimes happen that embarrassing admissions are made by guilty persons, or falsehoods told, which, when they come to be confronted with the evidence given at the trial, aid in their conviction; but I do not suppose anyone will think that is to the public disadvantage. In one criticism of my hon. Friend I very much sympathize—namely, that which he made in regard to prisoners not being allowed access to their solicitors or their friends during a particular stage of the inquiry. On that point I feel the force of what has been said. But, in coming to the main question raised by my hon. Friend, I think it right to say he must be under some misapprehension. Those who are not familiar with our Scotch system would greatly err if they supposed Procurators Fiscal have nearly the amount of power which he—no doubt inadvertently—led the House to suppose. A Procurator Fiscal, in what he does, acts both under the Sheriff of the county, and under the Lord Advocate and his subordinates in the Grown Office. He is amenable to both; and while it is true that some of the more trivial cases are not reported to the Crown Office, all grave cases are reported to that, where they are considered, and further proceedings or further inquiries are directed, or no proceedings ordered, as the Lord Advocate or his deputies think right. It would, therefore, be quite a mistake to imagine that a Procurator Fiscal has anything like large judgment and entire control which might have been supposed from some portions of my hon. Friend's speech. The system is well known to Scotch Members; and I do not think it is necessary to say more on that head. In regard to the more general question of principle which has been raised, I should entirely assent to the view that, wherever you can get competent and efficient men to devote their services exclusively to this or any other public duty, it is desirable that such exclusive services should be obtained; and that, I think, is the main proposition that my hon. Friend desires to have affirmed. But that must always be under conditions; and I think my hon. Friend recognizes this in one part of his Resolution, when he says that "wherever possible" they shall be re-

    165
    strained from engaging in private practice. This I interpret as a recognition of the fact that, without greatly higher salaries, it would be quite impossible to obtain the exclusive services of gentlemen of the class who have hitherto held the office of Procurator Fiscal. It is, however, not merely a question of money, as I shall immediately point out. Something has been said in regard to the union and the consolidation of the areas which are under the charge of different Fiscals; and if this could be accomplished, one very great difficulty would be got over. If it were possible, by placing a larger district under the authority of one man, to amalgamate offices now held separately, this would afford a means of providing an adequate salary for one good official. But anyone who is familiar with Scotland must know that that is very seldom possible. The great difficulty is that you cannot, if our system is to be effectively worked, have Procurators Fiscal located at too great distances from each other. You must have the Procurators Fiscal reasonably accessible to the inhabitants of the particular area, so that the police may report to him, and he may be able to proceed with his investigation as speedily as possible, going personally, in many cases, to the place where the crime has been committed, and also that witnesses may be brought to him for precognition. It will, therefore, be seen that there is a practical limit to the consolidation or union of areas; and it often is necessary, and, I fear, will remain necessary, to have a Procurator Fiscal at places where his official duties do not give him full employment. In many other branches of the Public Service you can work a man to the full by putting more districts under his authority; but, for the reasons I have stated, this frequently could not be done in the case of a Procurator Fiscal. There is nothing more familiar in human experience than this—that if you are to have an efficient man you must have a man in reasonably full employment. You get the best work out of the man who is worked up to nearly or altogether to his full power, and there can be no doubt that if in the area which is under the charge of a man who has not full employment in his official duties, and who is debarred from taking other work, he would de-
    166
    generate. His energy, his vigilance, his sagacity, his penetration—all those qualities which make a good Fiscal—would seriously suffer. So that, while I acknowledge the general principle contended for by my hon. Friend, I say that the qualification "wherever possible" should be extended to the whole of his Resolution. This matter was very fully considered by the Royal Commission which sat on the Scottish Law Courts from 1868 to 1871; and we who are familiar with it know that it was probably one of the strongest Commissions which has ever inquired into the important range of subjects submitted to it. A great deal of evidence was laid before that Commission, and most of the Members were men who had themselves had great practical experience of its working. It is only right that I should read the few lines in which they dealt with the subject now before the House, for the purpose of showing that it is not quite so easy or so plain a matter as might be thought from the speech of my hon. Friend. These lines read—
    "With reference to the office of Procurator Fiscal, we approve of the mode in which these officials were appointed, and the conditions under which they hold office. The majority do not concur in the suggestion that Procurators Fiscal should he prohibited from private practice, and think the effect of such, a prohibition might not infrequently be to prevent the public from obtaining for this important office the services of the most suitable person. The minority, who consider that the ends of justice would be better attained if the Procurators Fiscal were debarred from private professional practice, are at the same time persuaded that this view can only be carried out by enlarging the present rates of salaries allowed to these officials, and giving them a corresponding retiring allowance."
    It will be seen that there was a majority of that exceedingly well-informed and influential Commission who did not see their way to laying down any such hard-and-fast rule.
    MR. MACFARLANE: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman read the names?
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): The list is a long one. I will give it to the hon. Member; but I may only mention to the House that the Members comprised many of the most eminent lawyers in England and Scotland, and gentlemen representing varied interests. The hon. Member for North

    167
    Lanarkshire (Sir Edward Colebrooke), the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. Orr-Ewing), the right hon. Member for North Hants (Mr. Sclater-Booth), and the present Lord Provost of Edinburgh (Mr. Harrison) were Members of that Commission, which, alike from its constitution and the result of its labours, commanded the greatest respect in Scotland. To the general principle I entirely assent; and the best evidence of this, both with respect to this particular office and another office that has been referred to, is that in nearly every case of the appointment of a Sheriff Clerk with which I have had to do, a clause has been inserted in the Commission restraining the person appointed from engaging in private practice. I may point out that the appointment of Procurators Fiscal does not rest with the Government. Under the Act of 1877, Fiscals are appointed by the Sheriff, and only the approval of the Home Secretary is required. But I may add, with respect to the vacancies that have occurred since I have been in Office, that whenever the Sheriff has spoken to me before making an appointment, I have asked—"Is there such a salary as will induce a good man to accept the office, giving up other work?" In some cases such a man has been found, in others he has not; but I think the House will see that the general principle is recognized by the Government, and that as far as the conditions of the case will permit.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAY: What of the case of Aberdeen?
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): I cannot speak as to that; the appointment was made before I came into Office. I think it is to be regretted that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow should have thought it necessary, in support of the general principle which he advocated, to say some things to which I cannot assent, but from which I must express a very emphatic dissent. He said, among other things, that there was no class regarded with so wide suspicion as the Procurators Fiscal in Scotland. ["Hear, hear!"] I entirely dissent from that statement. I think I have had as good means as most people—and better, perhaps, than my hon. Friend—for many years past of knowing what sort of men Procurators
    168
    Fiscal are, and also of ascertaining the public estimate of them; and I can say that I do not believe that there exists in Scotland, or in any other country, a body of more honourable, or more zealous public officials, or of public servants who are more efficient in the discharge of their duties. I have not only to judge of their work, but to consider any complaints that may be urged against them, either in respect of omission or of over-zeal; and the result of the inquiries made has been generally, if not almost invariably, to vindicate the Procurators Fiscal. In none of the cases which we have had occasion to investigate have we found the conduct of any one of those gentlemen deserving of censure on the ground of impropriety. There may have been errors of judgment; but I regret that my hon. Friend used the expression to which I have referred, as I am satisfied that it was not in accordance with the fact. He mentioned a number of particular cases in aid of his general argument, and he classed these under various heads. The first I understand to be cases in which he says that proceedings should have been taken and were not taken; and he mentioned a class of offences under an Act of Parliament of which he was the author which dealt with certain classes of bankruptcy frauds. In this connection he stated that there were scores of cases in which no proceedings were taken. I daresay there are scores of cases in which no proceedings are taken, because I have considered many of them myself, and have directed that proceedings should not be taken; but if my hon. Friend means to say that there have been scores of cases under that Statute in which proceedings were not taken when they ought to have been taken, then I must entirely deny the statement. Numbers of cases have been reported and sent up in due course by the Fiscals to the Crown Office and there considered by the Advocates Depute—very often by the Solicitor General and myself—and where we have thought that a case of contravention of the Act was made out, we have always directed proceedings to be taken; but many cases have been reported in which there was really no ground for proceeding under the Statute. This is, perhaps, a class of cases in which people are sometimes disappointed that proceedings are not

    169
    taken; because creditors are very apt to smart when they do not get their money, and a certain element of intelligible vindictiveness enters into their conduct in pressing such charges. It, there fore, becomes the duty of those who have to examine such cases to apply their judgment and knowledge of the law and of facts; and I think, if my hon. Friend had the details of these cases, he would not be able to show any case in which proceedings should have been taken and were not taken. A number of other matters were entered into by my hon. Friend, in regard to which I do not think it would be right to detain the House. The Old Mill Reformatory case was the subject of a very careful and detailed inquiry by Mr. Rutherfurd, now Sheriff-Substitute in Edinburgh, and Dr. Littlejohn. It was a very mysterious business in the end as well as in the beginning; but it certainly is not the case that the facts were not sifted. The facts were sifted in the fullest possilbe way, not only by local inquiry, but by this Commission sent down from Edinburgh, consisting of gentlemen having no sort of connection with the locality. My hon. Friend referred to another case where he said there should have been a prosecution——
    DR. CAMERONexplained that he was referring to the same subject.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): The result of not one, but of several inquiries into this matter, failed to show that there had been any adulteration of the supply of milk. I know there was a statement sent out in a document purporting to show that from the quantity of milk sold compared with the actual yield there must have been water in it. Rival calculations were made; but the judgment of that entirely impartial tribunal was to establish that nothing of the kind had been proved. It was undoubtedly, a very mysterious disease; and it was supposed that it must have been due to some singular fungus which had got into the water used either in washing out the pails or put into the milk. But there was no evidence which would have warranted a prosecution in any Court. Something has been said in regard to the expense of certain proceedings with reference to lunatics. I have been asked a Question about the same matter before, and it
    170
    seemed to me then, as it does now, that the expense was very great. Some communications have taken place on that subject, and the matter is being inquired into. There are some other detailed matters that have been mentioned; but I do not think I should detain the House by going into them. While we assent to the general principle—and I think we have shown the sincerity of that assent by carrying out that principle as far as it was in our power—I am afraid that there are difficulties in the way of carrying it fully into effect which my hon. Friend may not have appreciated, but which I think, from what I have said, the House will understand. It is not necessary to occupy the time of the House by going into what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for the Kirkcaldy Burghs (Sir George Campbell). He recognized the general excellence of the system, but thought it might be improved; and, of course, all of us would be glad to improve it if we could. I did regret the language employed by the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Macfarlane), and it did come in very striking, as well as very sudden, contrast to the language of my hon. Friend the Member for the Kirkcaldy Burghs; because while my hon. Friend the Member for the Kirkcaldy Burghs spoke with approbation of the criminal system of Scotland generally, the hon. Member for Carlow thought fit to characterize it as "corrupt and rotten." I am glad that language was not used by a Scotch Member. I am quite sure it would not be endorsed by any Scotch Member; and I think I may say the same of a good deal of the other language which the hon. Member for Carlow thought fit to employ. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kincardineshire (Sir George Balfour) put some questions in regard to some particular accounts. I have not all the details of these accounts. The head he referred to contains a great variety of expenses. There are still a few Fiscals who are paid by fees. Most of them are paid by salary, but there are still a few who are paid by fees; and these, with other charges, are entered under the general head to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers. I may point out, before sitting down, that while this matter has been, and will be, kept in view in future appointments, it would,

    171
    of course, be impossible, without very large compensation, to alter the tenure of those who took office under the system which now prevails. It has been always regarded—and I think rightly regarded —as of paramount importance to get the services of the very best men for this class of work—men who will command —as I believe they do command—the confidence of the country as a whole. Many of them have been engaged in private practice before and since their appointment; and it is quite plain that the tenure of their office could not be altered after they had accepted it without seeing that full justice was done to them. I hope my hon. Friend will be satisfied with what I have said, and will see that the matter has not been overlooked, and will not be overlooked.
    MR. DICK-PEDDIEconsidered the statement of the Lord Advocate entirely unsatisfactory. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had distinctly admitted that it would be desirable, if possible, to have Procurators Fiscal devoting all their time to the duties of the office; but he had gone on to point out various objections, which resolved themselves into this—that it would cost more. He (Mr. Dick-Peddie) thought that in a matter of so great importance to Scotland a few hundred, or even a few thousand pounds should not be allowed to stand in the way of a change which was necessary to secure public confidence in the administration of justice. The Lord Advocate had also contended that it would be necessary, in some parts of the country where the population was scanty, to maintain the present system. But those were the very districts in which it was necessary for the Procurators Fiscal to be free from every kind of entanglement with local interests; for in the large towns, such as Glasgow and Edinburgh, the chances were that the Procurators would not be interested in the cases brought to their notice otherwise than from their official position, whereas in the country districts the probability was that the reverse would be the case. As to the salary to be paid to officials of this class, he thought the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) took too low an estimate of the amount when he spoke of £300 or £350. He thought that men having the necessary qualifications for the post, with regard alike to
    172
    legal knowledge, high character, and experience of life, would not be properly remunerated at that rate. The question was one which the Treasury must face. It was monstrous that in a country which contributed so much as Scotland did to the Imperial Exchequer a matter of a few thousand pounds should be allowed to stand in the way of a more efficient method of administering justice. He thought that in a discussion of this kind, turning, after all, upon a question of money, they ought to be favoured with the presence of a Representative of the Treasury. He observed the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney) looked in a short time ago; but apparently he just came into the House to go out. Certainly he was not here more than five minutes. The Lord Advocate confessed that the difficulty was one of money; and he knew perfectly well that there was a strong feeling in Scotland that until this money difficulty was got over, and Procurators Fiscal were made entirely independent of other influences of every kind, the poorer classes in Scotland would never be sure of receiving justice. Although he was far from joining in saying anything against the Procurators Fiscal generally—for he knew the great majority of them were men who were above suspicion—still, the system exposed them to temptations which ought not to exist. No system ought to be maintained in public life which did so expose them. He did not wish to prolong the discussion; but rose merely to tell the Lord Advocate that he must not suppose that his statement would satisfy the Scotch people, or that the Scotch Members would allow the matter to rest until the Government faced the financial difficulty.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he thought the Scotch Members had great reason to be dissatisfied with the action of the Government in this matter, especially as no Representative of the Treasury had been present. He was much disappointed by the speech of the Lord Advocate, for the right hon. and learned Gentleman defended the system to a large extent. In his opinion, the system of appointing public prosecutors who were also engaged in private business was altogether indefensible. He was not prepared to say that in very many cases

    173
    serious harm to justice arose; but certainly, where the Procurator Fiscal was engaged in a large private business, he often found himself in a position in which no man should be placed; and though he might not give way to the temptations to which he was exposed, yet he was open—and necessarily open—to suspicion in many cases. He assured the Lord Advocate that there was a very strong feeling of dissatisfaction in Scotland; and he hoped the Scotch Members would take a Division on the subject as a protest against the present system, and against the manner in which Scotland was being treated by the Government and the Treasury officials. The Lord Advocate had admitted that the question was a question of money, and the proper Treasury official ought to have been present to hear the views of the Scotch Members on the subject.
    MR. M'LAGANsaid, there could be no doubt that it would be for the advantage of the public that Procurators Fiscal should have no private practice, but that they should be paid sufficient to enable them to perform the public business without any extraneous support. At the same time, he dissented from a great deal that had been said as to the position of the Procurators Fiscal of the country. There was not a more capable body of men, so far as he was acquainted with them. They discharged their duties most impartially, and in their hands the administration of justice was perfectly safe. He could not, however, conceal the fact that their conducting private practice, and having landed proprietors and others as their clients, exposed them to suspicion which they did not deserve. It would, therefore, be for the advantage of the public that they should be paid from public funds, and have no private practice whatever. The speech of the Lord Advocate seemed to him to have been somewhat misrepresented. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he defended the Motion theoretically; but that, under present circumstances, he did not see his way to yield to the proposals made by the hon. Member for Glasgow. Still, he agreed with those hon. Members who had stated that this question seemed to have been shunted, and not treated as it ought to have been by the Government. Certainly, some Member of the Treasury ought to have been present to give his
    174
    views on the subject, seeing that this was more a financial question than anything else. If a Division were taken he should support the Motion of the hon. Member for Glasgow, for this reason—that he thought Procurators Fiscal should be paid by salary and have no private practice.
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, he hoped that before they went to a Division the House would know clearly what they were to divide upon. There was an apparent contradiction between, the Motion of the hon. Member for Glasgow and the speech in which he introduced it. In his Motion he proposed that the change he suggested should be made wherever practicable—in other words, he admitted that there were cases in which it was impossible. The Lord Advocate had, moreover, shown that he was anxious to adopt the principle wherever it was possible. Therefore, on that point, the Government and the hon. Member were agreed. He thought the hon. Member had fixed the salary too low in placing it at £350 a-year. They were now obtaining the services of some men to whom they paid £800 to £1,000 a-year, some of them being the most influential and able men they could obtain; and he thought the scale of remuneration suggested by the hon. Member was much too low. The hon. Member had also said that he did not object to Procurators engaging in private business outside the area in which they were officially employed; but the only private business a man could undertake would necessarily be in that area. He thought that if the House were asked to divide on the Motion as it was worded, it would be placed in a very awkward position.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 52; Noes 35: Majority 17.—(Div. List, No. 63.)
    Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," again proposed.

    POST OFFICE OFFICIALS—APPOINTMENT OF SOLICITORS TO POSTMASTERSHIPS.—OBSERVATIONS.
    SIR HERBERT MAXWELLcalled attention to the impropriety of appointing solicitors in practice to Postmasterships. The hon. Baronet had given No-

    175
    tice of the following Resolution, which, however, by the Forms of the House, he was precluded from moving:—
    "That, in the opinion of this House, the responsibility of appointing to Postmasterships, whatever the salary attached to the appointment, should rest solely with the Postal Authorities, and that the present system of making such appointments in certain cases conditional upon a nomination by Members of Parliament, endorsed by the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury, is anomalous, and calculated to interfere with the efficiency of the Postal and Telegraph Service."
    He remarked that the Motion was not at all of a personal or local character, and that it was one which had a very wide application. As it originally stood on the Paper, it applied specifically to an individual case in his own country—namely, the appointment of a solicitor to the Postmastership of Keith on the recommendation of a Member of that House. But now he brought the matter forward entirely in the public interest; and hon. Members opposite would be the more inclined to admit this if he reminded them that this Motion was verbatim the same as one which was submitted to the House by the hon. Member for Glasgow in the last Parliament, and supported by a considerable number of the Gentlemen who now sat on the Treasury Bench. The support of the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite whom he had mentioned divested the Motion of anything like a personal or partizan character. He believed there could be nothing said against Mr. Fraser, who had been appointed Postmaster at Keith, either as regarded his private character or his business qualifications. But it so happened that a very sinister colour was thrown over the transaction by the fact that Mr. Eraser was at the time of his appointment political agent of the hon. Member for Banffshire (Mr. R. W. Duff). That position he had since resigned; but the wider objection still remained. In the two instances in Scotland in which solicitors had been appointed Postmasters, of which Inverness was one, both appointments were made previously to the telegraph being taken over by the Post Office; consequently, the objection which he and most people entertained to solicitors having access to controversial confidential information conveyed in telegrams did not apply in those cases. But the objection did apply now; and
    176
    therefore he submitted that the appointment of a solicitor, as in this case, to an office which gave him such an insight into the affairs of his neighbours was most undesirable and improper. The terms of the present Motion, as he had said, were identical with one moved in the last Parliament by the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron). In that case his hon. Friend the Member for Bucks (Mr. Fremantle) had recommended an individual in his own county for a certain Postmastership. This individual was not a solicitor, so there was no objection to him on that ground; but the hon. Member for Glasgow characterized his appointment on the recommendation of the hon. Member for Bunks as a discreditable piece of jobbery. The hon. Member for Bucks candidly said the reason he nominated him was not only that he was well fitted to discharge the duties, but that he was a good Tory. Perhaps that was the reason which led the hon. Member for Glasgow to characterize the appointment as a piece of jobbery. He, however, did not wish to use any such expressions as to the recommendation of his hon. Friend the Member for Banffshire (Mr. Duff); but if he did he should have a precedent which was endorsed by the support of eight Members of Her Majesty's Government when in Opposition, including the present Postmaster General. It was on no personal or private grounds that he objected to this appointment. He appealed to the Postmaster General whether it would not be in the public interest that appointments such as this should be made by the Department over which he presided, and entirely without any reference either to the Member for the county in which the office was situated, or to the Government candidate at the last Election? It would be in the public interest, and in the interest of Members themselves; because he could imagine few things more irksome or more harassing than to have to decide between the competing claims of half-a-dozen candidates for some twopenny-halfpenny post office in a rural district. He submitted these considerations to the Postmaster General in the hope that the right hon. Gentleman would show himself of the same mind as he was in 1878; and if he was not able to support the Motion by his vote, that he would give some very good

    177
    ground for departing from the conclusion at which he then arrived.
    MR. R. W. DUFFsaid, he was not prepared to go into the general question which had been raised by his hon. Friend; but in the course of his speech he had alluded to an appointment for which he (Mr. Duff) might say he was responsible. With regard to Mr. Fraser's appointment, at the time the office became vacant he (Mr. Duff) applied to the usual authorities to know if a practising solicitor was capable of holding the appointment, and he ascertained that such an appointment had frequently been made. There was no doubt Mr. Eraser was admitted to be a most competent person for the office. A Memorial had been addressed to the Postmaster General since the appointment had been criticized, to which there were 989 signatories, two-thirds of whom were householders in the district, expressing their confidence in the appointment. On the other hand, a Petition had been got up against Mr. Fraser, signed by eight individuals, two of whom were non-resident, and who happened to be agents of the Conservative Party in the district. His hon. Friend had also alluded to an occasion when a similar subject was brought before the House some years ago. On that occasion he (Mr. Duff) voted in favour of these appointments being given by the Treasury; and he was much obliged to his hon. Friend for recalling the fact, because it was a proof of his (Mr. Duff's) consistency on the present occasion. With regard to the opinions entertained by the Postmaster General, he thought his right hon. Friend would rather like to see the appointments in the hands of the Post Office; but during the time he had been in Office the Treasury had always exercised that patronage, and he did not suppose those who held Office under the Treasury would like to see it given up. And if his hon. Friend would refer to the Division List in 1878, he would find that all his own Friends connected with the Treasury were in favour of these appointments being given to the Treasury. With regard to the fact of a Postmaster being a solicitor, he had no doubt objection might exist on the ground of his having access to telegrams; but, on the other hand, the Post Office was not prepared to pay people to do the work of the Post Office exclusively.
    178
    If an appointment of this kind was given to a grocer he would equally know all about everything that was going on among the other grocers, and he did not know that such an appointment, would be any improvement upon the present system. He might remind his. hon. Friend, in view of his objection to a solicitor having the appointment, that the Inverness Post Office, which was a much more important office than Keith, was given, he believed, by a Conservative Member who was very much respected—Mr. Baillie.
    SIR HERBERT MAXWELL: That was before the telegraphs were taken, over by the Post Office.
    MR. R. W. DUFFsaid, that was quite true; but the Conservative Government never cancelled the appointment after that date. He did not think a case had been made out against the appointment in question; and he was quite satisfied it was one which had given great satisfaction to the neighbourhood.
    MR. GORSTsaid, he thought that the hon. Member had done good service by calling attention to the matter. This was the only instance of patronage in which a Member of the Party which happened at the time to be in Office was allowed to recommend a person to the Public Service, not for his fitness to discharge the duties of the office, but because he happened to be a political supporter. In that question both Governments were equally to blame; but he was quite sure that the Postmaster General would not say one thing when in Opposition and another when in Office; and he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would support the Motion. He had no desire whatever to throw any blame in this matter upon the present Government, because he was confident that if the Front Opposition Bench were occupied when the Estimates were being discussed, the Members of the late Government would have to confess that they were as much to blame with regard to this subject as their political opponents. The real fault lay with the system under which these appointments were made. He trusted that now that the attention of the Government had been drawn to this subject, that system would be put an end to.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF, with all due respect to the hon. Member for

    179
    Banffshire (Mr. R. W. Duff), contended that the recommendation of Mr. Eraser was not a fortunate one, because he was a political agent.
    MR. R. W. DUFF: He had ceased to be a political agent before he got the appointment.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he was, at any rate, a political partizan. Supposing a political agent happened to be a Postmaster, with access to the telegrams, and during an election an important telegram happened to be sent for the opposite Party, it would take some time to reach its destination. And supposing, also, that in the middle of some professional case, conducted by the Postmaster as a solicitor, a telegram came which was of material importance to the opposite side, and referring to some point of law, would he not be open to a temptation which ought not to be thrown in the way of a public official? The Government should look carefully into these matters, which appeared liable to lead to grave abuses.

  CHARITY COMMISSIONERS — ALLOTMENTS EXTENSION ACT, 1882.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGS, in rising to call attention to the action of the Charity Commissioners with regard to the Allotments Extension Act, 1882, remarked that this was a subject that affected thousands of the very poorest agricultural labourers in the country; and it was no exaggeration to say that it was one that was a matter of life and death to them, as it made the difference between their being half-starved and having enough to eat. He was sitting down some time ago with a man and his family, who were having dinner on bread and onions; and, but for the allotment, they would have been minus the onions when they sat down to table. He was glad to see the Prime Minister in his place, because he found it necessary to appeal to the Government, instead of to the Charity Commissioners, in order to know from them whether an Act of Parliament passed for the benefit of poor labouring men was to be entirely ignored or rendered a dead letter? It would be in the recollection of the House that in 1882 an Act was passed which provided that the Trustees of all the Charity lands of the country, the proceeds of which
    180
    were not devoted to educational, ecclesiastical, or apprenticeship purposes, should be compelled to offer these lands to the agricultural labourers and others in the parishes in which they were situated. In the original draft of the Act, the County Court was made the Court of Appeal from the Trustees; but, unfortunately, as the Bill was passing through Parliament, the Charity Commissioners were substituted for the County Court, with the result that the Act had, in many cases, become a dead letter. The object of the Act was to insure the land being offered in plots of not more than one acre to poor labourers at a fair rent — that was, at an agricultural rent. Every hon. Member in that House must be convinced of the immense importance of such plots of land to the agricultural labourer. In many cases the Trustees of the Charity lands had acted in the most liberal and enlightened manner; but in the majority of instances they had either not acted at all, or they had imposed restrictions altogether illegal, as to rent and so forth, which had made it difficult, if not impossible, for these poor men to avail themselves of the Act. In all the cases where the Trustees declined to move it was the duty of the Charity Commissioners to enforce the compulsory clause of the Act. Instead of doing so, they had, in many instances, refrained from acting, and in some cases had aided the Trustees in their efforts to defeat the Act. Such had been the deadlock that a Society—the Allotments Extension Association—had been established to see that an Act of Parliament passed almost unanimously should not be allowed to become useless owing to the disinclination to move on the part of those responsible to carry it out. In these circumstances, he had been forced to call the attention of the House to the subject. He possessed a list of some 70 or 80 cases, with reference to which between 1,000 and 2,000 letters had passed between the Allotments Extension Association, the Charity Commissioners, and the Trustees. In most of these cases, had the Charity Commissioners written a single letter to the Trustees, pointing out the compulsory character of the Act, and requiring them to move the land, would have been in possession of the land by this time. As a matter of fact, there had been constant delays, and, in

    181
    most cases, the applicants were now no better off than they were 18 months ago, when they began their applications. There were thousands of men who, when the Allotments Extension Act was passed, looked upon it as a little salvation for them, and their disappointment was very great when they found that they had been deprived of the benefit which it conferred upon them. The applications made to the Charity Commissioners during the last 16 months to see that the law should be enforced had proved fruitless. The men had been, in many cases, told that the land was too remote, while, in fact, it was quite near and very suitable. These English agricultural labourers had displayed exemplary patience in the matter. While in Scotland they heard that something like revolution would ensue if justice were not done, the labourers in England were very patient, though they had in one case threatened to out the church bell ropes. The men felt the grievance all the more acutely, because the provisions of the Act of Parliament were clear and precise. He maintained that the Commissioners had no right to decide, as they had done in some cases, that grass land should not be put into the hands of the men. The Commissioners excused themselves by saying that the income from grass lands would be greater than if these lands were cut up. But what were the facts? Among others, he would mention to the House a case which occurred at Haddenham. There the land was grass land; but the men were refused it. The land was let locally at about £5 for 10 acres, and the men were asked to pay 32 s. an acre for it. That land was let at the rate of about 10 s. an acre. Now, where was the advantage to the Charity? Then there was another case which was published in The Bury and Norwich Post. The editor of that paper complained very properly of the manner in which the labourers were treated. He said that the land was let in allotments to 16 villagers. That word "villagers" sounded very well; but the worst of it was that the land had previously been let at 40 s. an acre, while the cottagers were obliged to pay 55 s. for it. That was illegal, because the Act said that the plots should be let at the same rate as land of the same quality in the parish. The editor went on to say, however, that he did not think the men
    182
    would gain much by their plots this year, owing to the high rent, though they might, perhaps, do so next year. The men were afraid of the Charity Commissioners, and they mistrusted them. When the Act was before the House of Commons a Petition was sent in its favour from a district with which he was acquainted, and the Petitioners prayed that no power should be placed in the hands of the Charity Commissioners for the purpose of granting allotments; but that the power should be vested in the Vestry, which had hitherto exercised wisely the powers that had been intrusted to it. He hoped that when a Local Authority in counties was created the management of these lands would be one of the duties intrusted to it. He would point out that in many cases the labourers were willing to give a higher rent for the land than the Trustees obtained from others to whom they let it; and that when the Allotments Association wrote to the Charity Commissioners on the subject they declined to discuss it, except with persons interested under the Act. It was not a question now between the labourers and the Charity Commissioners, but between the Charity Commissioners and the Government. He hailed the time when local self-government would be established, which would enable the labourers to protect themselves. People talked about setting class against class; but the action of the Charity Commissioners, especially in the matter of these allotments, had tended more to set class against class than any agitation that he knew of. He had seen it, and could prove it by letters which he had received. Sometimes, also, the Trustees demanded payment of a year's rent in advance. Now, to ask an agricultural labourer to pay down two or three sovereigns in advance, as had been done, was adding insult to injury. Representative rural governments would prevent such injustice as he had described, and would be only second in importance to the Representation of the People Bill. The condition of these men was one that entitled them to fair and generous consideration; and that, he thought, they had not had. He had himself taxed the Chairman of the Charity Commissioners (Sir Seymour Fitzgerald) with unhandsome opposition to the Bill during its passage through

    183
    Parliament. The question was, would the Government allow the Charity Commissioners to override an Act of Parliament? He was tired of applying to the Charity Commissioners. He was told that if he went to them he would get what he wanted; but he went to them once, and he would not go again. He did not see why he should ask as a favour that which they were bound to do by Act of Parliament. A case had been brought to his notice in which the Trustees were selling a piece of land; and when the purchasers found that the sale was contrary to Act of Parliament they wished to withdraw; but the Charity Commissioners would not allow them. The sale was completed, and the land lost to the men. There was very little doubt that the Charity Commissioners were at the back of the vendors in this case, and that they had arbitrarily overridden an Act of Parliament, the terms of which were mandatory. If they continued to act as they had hitherto done, it must follow that the Orders of the House of Commons would become subordinate to those of the Commissioners. If necessary, he could give 60 or 70 cases where the Act had been disregarded; and it was rendered absolutely impossible for those for whose benefit it was passed to reap any advantage from it. Men began to despair; and in a letter, which he had unfortunately not brought with him, a labourer in Norfolk said that, before the passing of the Act, he had intended to emigrate, but had decided otherwise when the Act was passed. He had thought he could get along with a bit of land; but now, since he had seen that the Act had not been carried out, he was determined to emigrate, as this country was evidently no place for a poor man. He (Mr. Jesse Collings) believed that that was true to a large extent; and what he contended for was that the Commissioners were not judges of what the Act should be. They were intended to be simply a Court of Appeal to compel unwilling Trustees to carry out the Act. It might be urged, however, that there had been a Select Committee appointed to consider the subject, and why not wait? But it must be borne in mind that a year and a-half had gone already, and comparatively little had been done. The people
    184
    whose cause he was advocating were not Soudanese or Blacks, or they might get attention, but common English people, who were suffering a great wrong through being deprived of the benefits which that House had intended to confer upon them. He hoped no mere perfunctory answer would be given by the Government to the serious case he had brought before the House.
    MR. MUNDELLAasked what other answer could be possibly made to the elaborate statements which had taken over an hour to lay before the House? There was no man in the House more thoroughly in sympathy with the Allotments Act than himself; and he believed almost any man who had the interests of the peasantry of this country at heart would be anxious to facilitate the Act. The course taken by the hon. Gentleman was inconvenient and somewhat unfair. The charges made by the hon. Gentleman should either have been communicated to him in advance, so that he could have made inquiry, or they should be investigated by the Select Committee which was appointed a short time ago. His right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works was the Chairman of the Committee; and a Member of the Committee was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote), than whom no one had done more in obtaining allotments for labourers. He thought the constitution of the Committee was a guarantee that the subject would be thoroughly threshed out. The Commissioners had come before him in cases affecting his own Office, and he had always found them as anxious as he was himself to carry out the Act. [Mr. JESSE COLLINGS: The men have not the land.] As the Act only came into operation last year, they would hardly have the land by this time. Undoubtedly, there were difficulties and obstacles in the way in some cases; but the Commissioners had endeavoured, over and over again, in those cases, to induce the Trustees to facilitate the working of the Act. As to the removal of Trustees, that was no easy matter, and a good deal of legal procedure had to be gone through before that could be done. Then, again, his hon. Friend had said that the answers he had made in a particular case were not candid answers. As far as he was con-

    185
    cerned, he repudiated that statement, and declared that the answers he gave were as straightforward and as candid as he could give. The Charity Commissioners had just published their Report showing the working of the Act of the first year, and they stated that there was great difficulty in carrying out the Act. In the first place, it was very badly drawn, and consequently very difficult to construe. The most difficult questions were put to the Commissioners as to how the Act should be worked, and there was constant conflict between the Trustees and the Commissioners. He could only assure his hon. Friend that there had been two new Commissioners appointed this year; and to one of them, Sir F. Stanford, he had spoken very strongly in the interest of the labourer, and that gentleman was as anxious as his hon. Friend that the Act should be properly worked. The Act really needed some amendment before it could be looked upon as a practical Act. He thought that it was hardly fair to the Commissioners that his hon. Friend having, on the 9th of April, referred the whole of this question to a Select Committee, should on the 21st of the same month come down to the House with an elaborate statement which was not to be perfunctorily answered. He hoped his hon. Friend would bring all the cases of hardship he had enumerated before the Select Committee, and that they would have such a Report from the Committee as would show that the contentions of his hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich were in accordance with the facts. More the House would not expect him to say.
    MR. ELTONsaid, that the hon. Member (Mr. Jesse Collings) showed impatience of the actions, not only of the Commissioners, but of the ordinary Law Courts. Speaking as a Trustee of some of the lands over which this Act was supposed to operate, he asserted that it was clumsy and unworkable, and that it cast a grievous burden upon those who undertook the functions of Trustees. He very much doubted, too, whether the demand for allotments had not been greatly exaggerated. He had called the attention of the labourers in a large parish to the benefits of the Act, and they all refused to take advantage of it. They did not want allotments, because experience showed them it was cheaper
    186
    to buy the onions and turnips than to grow them. Let them take the cost of sowing and carrying the crop, and they would find that a crop of a quarter of an acre of potatoes or onions would cost about £1 more than the same quantity purchased. They on that side of the House were just as anxious to benefit the labourers as the hon. Member for Ipswich; but if the Allotment Act was to be of any service to them, it must undergo very considerable change.
    MR. CLARE READ: I happen not to have had the honour of occupying a seat in this House when the Act now under discussion was passed; and, therefore, I am in a better position to offer some criticisms upon it. I may say, however, that I quite endorse what has fallen from the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Elton) who has just sat down, when he stated that this Act has proved a most unworkable one. The speech that has been made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings) has, I think, displayed a lamentable want of knowledge as to the practical nature of the cultivation of these allotments, and also of the extreme difficulty under which the Trustees labour in carrying out the Act. I suppose it was the duty of the Trustees, in the first instance, to consider what were the original objects of the Charity, and to see that those objects should not be injured or altogether destroyed by the operation of the Act. When the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ipswich tells us that a certain extra rent is demanded from the agricultural labourer beyond that which is obtained from the farmer, I think he ought also to have stated this fact—that it is invariably the case, whenever we let land to the agricultural labourers in acres, or half acres, or in quarter acres, the rent charged always includes the rates and tithes and the taxes; whereas all those charges, when the land is let to the farmer, are invariably paid by the occupier. This fact, therefore, very naturally makes a considerable difference in the rents. Again, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ipswich thinks that it would be consistent in the case of Trusts, who have under their direction a good field of pasture land, which has, perhaps, been accumulating its fertility for centuries, to break this up all of a sudden into allotments, whereby three or four years

    187
    of potato cultivation would render the land barren and unfruitful, and certainly not worth, half or even a fourth so much rent as it now fetches. Again, with regard to the possibility of carrying out this Act, I am inclined to say that, in the majority of the cases, it is almost impossible to carry out the Act. In the county with which I am most intimately acquainted, many parishes had allotments made when the common was inclosed, for the purpose of cutting fuel. If there be any fuel in the shape of peat to be dug it is dug up, and the land is consequently rendered comparatively valueless; and if the allotment be not suited for the purposes of fuel, it is often situated at the remote end of the common, and at a considerable distance from the houses. I know of several instances in which these allotments run to the extent of from 10 to 20 and even 30 acres; and they are, generally speaking, let to small traders or small farmers in the adjacent village. But if they are to be let as allotments they are, in the first place, often very inconveniently situated. I may also say that I do not think the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ipswich has the slightest knowledge of the difficulty that is experienced in taking two or three acres of these fields for the purposes of allotments. The expense of putting up and maintaining fences, and of providing a road or even a path is considerable; and there is no certainty, as the hon. and learned Gentleman near me (Mr. Elton) has pointed out, that the tenants will continue to hold the land. Also, I am quite sure that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ipswich is not aware that the allotments have gone very much out of favour with agricultural labourers during the last few years. In my own district these allotments are, I am happy to say, very general, and when situated near a village and where they are let in plots not exceeding half an acre or a quarter of an acre—which is usually about all a man can cultivate with a spade—in such cases the allotments are most valuable. But I am sorry to say that I have noticed in that district within the last seven or eight years, and more particularly within the last two or three years, that a number of these allotments have remained unlet, and that the cultivation of others has very seriously deteriorated.

  POST OFFICE OFFICIALS—APPOINTMENT OF SOLICITORS TO POSTMASTERSHIPS.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, he was sorry to draw the attention of the House from this subject back to the remarkable conduct of the Ministers, and especially the Posmaster General, in not making any answer to his hon. Friend the Member for Wigtonshire (Sir Herbert Maxwell). He had risen to speak upon the question when the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings) had caught the Speaker's eye. He observed the Secretary to the Treasury in his place; and he hoped that, as the Postmaster General was absent, he would deal with the question which had been raised by the hon. Member for Wigtonshire as to the patronage of the Treasury in the case of the smaller Postmasterships. That patronage was a great misfortune both to the State and to individuals. It was admitted that the hon. Member for Banff-shire (Mr. R. W. Duff) had obtained the appointment of Postmaster for his local agent at Keith—a solicitor—and it was obvious that great injustice might be done to other legal practitioners in the town by the circumstance that all telegrams passed through his office. It was an unusual course for a Member of the Government to take to remain silent when a question was raised impugning the manner in which the patronage of his Department bad been administered. This silence was the more remarkable that the right hon. Gentleman had, some few years ago, voted in support of a Motion almost identical with that which had been put on the Paper by the hon. Baronet the Member for Wigtonshire but which he was not able to move by reason of the Forms of the House. The Motion to which he referred was also supported on that occasion by the Secretary to the Treasury, the present Under Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Ashley), the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), and by several other Members of the Government. He hoped the Secretary to the Treasury would assure the House that the Treasury was willing to hand over this patronage to the Post Office.
    MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he thought that his hon. Friend the Member for Eye was quite justified in calling atten-

    189
    tion to the great want of courtesy on the part of the Government. Surely the question now raised was of sufficient importance to claim some little attention even from Her Majesty's Government. The absence of the Postmaster General at that moment was somewhat significant.
    MR. COURTNEY: He went away because the discussion was over.
    MR. E. STANHOPE: As far as I can judge, the discussion is still going on.
    MR. COURTNEY: There has been a long discussion on another subject.
    MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he was aware that some speeches had been interposed; but he thought the Government should offer some explanation of their silence, and tell the House that they either would or would not look into the matter.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, that the discussion had been raised an hour ago in the presence of the Postmaster General. He himself had not been in the House when the discussion began, and the Postmaster General left when the discussion dropped. ["No!"] At all events, the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings) got up and raised a discussion on a new subject. The hon. Member for Eye had attacked him (Mr. Courtney); but he knew as little about the matter as the hon. Member for Eye himself, so that his attack was perfectly uncalled for.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKheld that it was the duty of the Members of the Government to remain on the Treasury Bench until the House went into Committee of Supply. Not long ago the House had to comment on the absence of Ministers from that Bench, which showed what a great change was coming over the conduct of the Business of the House. Unless hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who received pay for sitting on the Treasury Bench attended to their duties, it was high time the House took the matter into its own hands.
    MR. WARTONsaid, that the present conduct of the Government was part of a system which began the very first night of the Session by having a Minister present who was not to speak, and by having the Minister absent who was to speak. So, that night, they had a Minister present who said he knew nothing whatever about the subject before the House, and the Minister who knew about it was absent. He thought the House had a right to complain of this.
    MAJOR GENERAL ALEXANDER, declared that the conduct of the Postmaster General in leaving the House without replying to the speech of the hon. Member for Wigtonshire (Sir Herbert Maxwell) was unworthy of a right hon. Gentleman occupying such a position. In his (Major General Alexander's) view, the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) was right in expressing an opinion that the patronage, as far as the appointment of Postmasters was concerned, should not be in the hands of private individuals, but of a public Department.
    MR. BIGGARobserved, that the Members of the present Government were too much in the habit of blowing hot and cold, advocating political purity when they were in Opposition, but pursuing a different course of conduct when they came into power. The case brought before the House was a glaring instance of indirect corruption, and the real reason the Postmaster General did not reply was that he felt the transaction was indefensible. All these appointments should be made by competitive examination. It was most unjust that a political attorney should have the means of knowing what private telegrams to his political and legal rivals were about. In his opinion, judgment ought to go against the Government in this matter by default.
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONcomplained of the contemptuous manner in which a question affecting the interests of the agricultural labourers had been treated by the Government, and expressed his surprise that when a charge of having perpetrated a job had been brought against the Government, the Secretary to the Treasury, who knew nothing about the matter, had been put up to reply.
    Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.

    CLASS I.—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.
    (1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £30,603, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum

    191
    necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1885, for the Maintenance and Repair of Royal Palaces."
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURwished to make an appeal to the Secretary to the Treasury in regard to this Vote, which was one that had been subjected to a considerable amount of criticism year after year. What he desired was that the Secretary to the Treasury should give hon. Members a detailed statement with respect to the alterations and repairs which had been effected in some of the Palaces, and for what purposes made, so that they might have a proper idea of what the real state of things was. The last Government had consented to follow the plan as followed on the introduction of the Army and Navy Estimates, and for two Sessions made a statement for the purpose of placing the House in full possession of the facts of the case; and he thought it would only be fair that some explanation should be made in regard to the Civil Service Estimates by the Secretary to the Treasury, similar to those which the Secretary of State for War and the Secretary to the Admiralty now gave. There was also a statement made with regard to India. For years they had obtained from the Secretary of State for India a full and clear explanation of the alterations in the Indian Expenditure; and in regard to the Civil Service Votes, he thought that it was desirable that the Heads of the different Departments should draw up statements which would enable the Secretary to the Treasury to place the Committee in possession of full detailed information as to the various items included in the different Votes. He hoped the Secretary to the Treasury would hereafter attend to that request. What he particularly wanted in regard to this Vote was that some explanation should be given by the Chief Commissioner of Works in regard to the heavy charges which year after year took place in reference to the Royal Palaces. It was well known that some of these Royal Palaces were placed at the disposal of persons who were not Members of the Royal Family; and as they were allowed to occupy the Palaces free of expense, he was certainly of opinion that they ought to do the repairs that were necessary to maintain them in proper order.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he was not quite sure whether he had properly caught the opening observations of the hon. and gallant Gentleman; but if he had gathered their purport rightly, the hon. and gallant Gentleman was of opinion that it was desirable that in introducing the Civil Service Estimates a statement should be made by the Minister in charge of them as to the variation in the different Votes similar to that which was given in regard to the Army and Navy Estimates. Upon that point he cordially agreed with the hon. and gallant Member. He certainly thought that the alterations made in many of the Votes were well worthy of the consideration of the Committee, and that some explanation should be given with regard to them. In the present Votes he found that there was an item of £548 transferred from Vote 3 to Vote 8, and having reference to Longford River, in the neighbourhood of Richmond. Last year, however, the amount of the Vote was only £110; and, therefore, the entry in the present Estimates intimating a simple transfer in the Vote was entirely misleading. Then, again, the third item in the Vote had reference to Hampton Court Palace, which appeared to have cost £12,000 out of a total of £36,000. Last year the amount required was £13,000. He thought it was a matter of interest to ascertain how much Hampton Court Palace had cost the country; and he would ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he was willing to furnish an Estimate of the amount of money spent on Hampton Court Palace during the last five years?
    MR. LABOUCHEREcongratulated the Government on the fact that they had succeeded in reducing this Vote by the sum of £4,000 from what it was last year. He had no doubt the reduction had been brought about in consequence of the criticisms which were passed upon the Vote last year; and he believed that if the same course were pursued this year there would be a further reduction next. He would, therefore, ask the Committee to agree to a Motion for reducing the Vote by a sum of £2,000. He thought, if that were done, there would be a reduction in the expenditure upon the Royal Palaces during the coming year by Her Majesty's Government, which would amount at least to

    193
    another £4,000. There were at present in the Vote many items which ought not to figure in it at all; and he wanted to know upon what grounds so many Royal Palaces were maintained? He could well understand that, so long as the country was ruled by a Monarchy, there ought, at least, to be two Royal Palaces; but Her Majesty already possessed one at Windsor, which was one of the finest in the world, and in London there was Buckingham Palace. If hon. Members would look down the list given in the Vote they would see a large number of houses, palaces, cottages, and gardens, and goodness knew what, all of which cost a large sum of money to maintain. He did not know what their object was; and his own opinion was that a good many of them ought to be sold, or let, or pulled down. He saw one item for Frogmore House and Grounds, and another for the White Lodge in Richmond Park. With all due respect to Her Majesty, he wished to know if she ever resided at White Lodge or at Frogmore House, and why those buildings were put down as the Royal residences of Her Majesty? He did not object to St. James's Palace in London, because that was occasionally used for State purposes; but he saw items for Clarence House, and the residence of the Duke of Cambridge, &c. Now, very large sums of money were voted to every Member of the Royal Family; and he did not see that, in addition to those sums, the country should not only be bound to provide, but also to maintain a house for each of them. The expenditure was one which ought to be taken into consideration at the time provision was made for the Royal Family. His hon. Friend the Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) complained of the expenditure incurred in regard to Hampton Court Palace. No doubt, Hampton Court Palace was a kind of poor-house for the aristocracy; but it was also a Palace for the people; and he doubted whether it was desirable to diminish the expenditure incurred in keeping it up.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORremarked, that ample provision was made for it in another Vote.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he had no doubt that was so; and that when the attention of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, or whoever represented the Government in the matter, was called
    194
    to it, he would say that he did not know anything about it. He was glad to see that the Government had made some reduction from last year in the item of the Hampton Court Stud House. Instead of £900 being asked for, a sum of £490 only was to be spent this year upon that Stud House. He hoped the Government would be able to inform the Committee what the Stud House was wanted for at all. Then, again, there was an item of £495 for Bushy House, gardens, and stables; upper lodge, and paddocks; the cottage; Hawthorne Lodge; Waylands; and the park, and carpenters' cottages in Bushy Park. They were establishments which, probably, nobody had ever heard of before; and he should like to know what they were. Considering that the Royal Palaces provided for, and actually occupied by, Her Majesty, were liberally maintained by the country, and that the other Members of the Royal Family received large and handsome allowances, he thought the places they selected for their residences ought to be maintained out of their own means. He would, therefore, move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £2,000.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £28,603, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1885, for the Maintenance and Repair of Royal Palaces."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
    MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, he hoped that no reduction would be considered necessary by the Committee, in regard to Hampton Court Palace at least. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had described Hampton Court Palace very incorrectly and unjustly as a retreat for the aristocracy. It was well known that Her Majesty, through the Government, had given up Hampton Court Palace to the relations, and especially to the widows, of distinguished officers who had fallen in the service of the Crown; and certainly the apartments of the Palace could not be devoted to a better use. The hon. Member admitted that it was also a people's Palace—that was to say, that it afforded a great amount of pleasure and recreation to the people of the Metropolis. There was also a valuable and interesting collection of paint-

    195
    ings gathered together in Hampton Court Palace. He was bound to say that the criticisms which had been passed upon the Vote assumed, to his mind, a niggardly and pseudo-economical aspect. He did not think that any special reason had been given by the hon. Member for the reduction of the Vote; and until the hon. Member made a more authoritative statement it was desirable that the Committee should pause. He would take, for example, the criticisms which had been passed upon Bushy House and Park, and upon the lodges which were now maintained and kept up. Of course, in the preservation and maintenance of Parks of that kind some expense was necessary from year to year; but it would be found, on reference to the total expenditure, that it had only reached the sum of £394. He had no wish to defend the Vote in general. That was not his business, but must rest with Her Majesty's Government. He had only risen to defend the Vote for Hampton Court Palace; and he was bound to say that no reason had been brought forward by the hon. Member for Northampton for the reduction of the Vote.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) seemed to think that the demand made by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) for a more economical expenditure of the money of the country was only a pretence and a sham. Now, he (Mr. Rylands) did not wish to depart one iota from any of the conditions under which the public were charged with the maintenance of the Royal Palaces; but he wished to ask his right hon. Friend the Chief Commissioner of Works to state under what Act these Royal Palaces were in the charge of the country, in order that hon. Members might distinctly understand which of these buildings they were bound under the Statute to maintain, and to what extent they were bound to maintain them? They would then be able to consider whether any of the buildings now brought under the Vote were brought under it without full justification. He should be perfectly ready himself to defer to the Act of Parliament. On a previous occasion his right hon. Friend the Chief Commissioner of Works alluded to the fact that the Statute was passed in 1838, on the ac-
    196
    cession of Her Majesty to the Throne; and he would be very much obliged to his right hon. Friend if he would lay down distinctly the conditions under which the country was called on to maintain the various Palaces in the occupation of Her Majesty, and those which were not in her occupation. What he maintained was this—that the Government ought to be careful, under the present system of voting grants for repairing and keeping up these buildings, that they did not give to irresponsible people an opportunity of charging much larger sums, under cover of improvements and repairs, than were necessary. That was the point he wished to raise. A very considerable amount of expenditure went on from year to year which never would be incurred at all if the Royal personages who occupied these buildings had to pay for it out of their own pockets. He did not mean to say, under the present arrangement, that they ought to be called upon to bear the expense out of their own pockets; but what he contended was that the system which ought to be adopted should be one which would provide that the public would not be called upon to pay more than the persons who occupied the buildings if they had to pay it out of their own pockets. No doubt, the public had the greatest possible interest in maintaining Hampton Court Palace. It was one of the Establishments which the people of the Metropolis and of the country largely frequented and enjoyed to a very considerable extent. In point of fact, it was a national institution; and it would be most absurd to refuse to maintain it. At the present moment Hampton Court Palace might be said to be divided into two—that was to say, that one part of the institution was made use of for the occupation of persons who had, more or less, a claim upon the Crown for a recognition of their services, while the other part was thrown open for the enjoyment and recreation of the general public. Only a short time ago, in consequence of part of this national property being occupied in this peculiar and very objectionable manner by private persons, it was nearly burnt down, through some carelessness on the part of the servants of one of the persons who happened to be provided with one of the apartments. It was stated in the public Press at that time

    197
    that it was a most short-sighted policy to have this people's Palace, thus occupied by private individuals, running the risk of having it destroyed in consequence of the carelessness of some housemaid, or of some servant employed in the building. It would be much better if the distinguished persons who were now supplied with apartments, or who had a claim on the Government, should have special grants provided for them, rather than that Hampton Court Palace should be converted into a kind of rabbit warren. Hon. Members must also bear in mind that it did not follow, because it was desirable to keep up Hampton Court Palace, that they should spend upon it the large sums now expended. The question was, were they spending more than was necessary? He suspected that they were spending more than was necessary, and that Hampton Court Palace could be maintained in such a manner as would amply protect the property for three-fourths of the amount now expended. He saw in the Vote another item for the Royal Mews at Pimlico, which had cost no less than £1,257 for ordinary repairs and maintenance. Hon. Members must further consider that this was not an exceptional year, because last year the Royal Mews at Pimlico cost just as much. [An hon. MEMBER: Rather more.] He could not conceive that, in maintaining the Royal Mews at Pimlico in a proper state of repair, it was necessary to expend anything like £1,250 a-year. He did not believe that anything of the kind was really incurred. He was quite satisfied that hon. Members in that House did not pay anything like the same proportion for keeping up their own mews; and that the amount now asked for in the Vote was far in excess of what it ought to be, compared with the amount which noblemen and hon. Members paid. ["No, no!"] He, certainly, had not much experience in the matter; but he had an idea that noble Lords and hon. Members would grumble somewhat strongly if they had to pay £1,250 a-year for the maintenance of their mews. If his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) went to a Division he should certainly vote with him; not from any indisposition to maintain the Royal Palaces, or to depart one iota from any condition in the agreement under which
    198
    the House had undertaken to maintain all these buildings; but simply on the ground that in the Estimates from year to year there was abundant evidence to prove that that care and economy of administration were not practised which would be exercised if parties who enjoyed the advantage of those improvements and repairs had to pay for them out of their own pockets.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had commenced his remarks by admitting that the Vote showed a reduction of £4,000 as compared with the Vote of last year. He could assure the Committee that he had gone through the various items in the Vote with the greatest care; and, granting the necessity of maintaining and preserving these Royal Palaces, he did not think it was possible to make any further reduction upon them. His hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) asked under what Act of Parliament the duty of maintaining the Royal Palaces was thrown upon the country? His hon. Friend was mistaken in supposing that the duty was imposed by an Act of Parliament. The Royal Palaces were maintained by Votes of Parliament under an agreement with the Crown, which was made at the time when Her Majesty came to the Throne, and which was similar to the agreement entered into with previous Sovereigns. Under that agreement the Government undertook to maintain and keep certain Royal Palaces in repair. If Her Majesty had undertaken to defray those charges herself, as a matter of course the Civil List would have been much greater than it was. As the matter stood, the Government were certainly under an obligation to maintain and repair all the Palaces included in the Vote; and he did not think it was now open to them to decline to repair and maintain any one of them. Those Palaces were divided into two classes—first, those which were in the occupation of Her Majesty; and, secondly, those which were not in Her Majesty's occupation. With regard to those in the occupation of Her Majesty, the obligation of the Government was more full and complete than it was in respect to the second class; because the Government had to undertake the internal as well as the external repairs, but not the internal decorations. In the case of the Palaces

    199
    not in the occupation of Her Majesty, but occupied by the persons placed there by Her Majesty, the internal repairs and decorations were not paid for out of that Vote; but the persons residing there, as in the instance of Hampton Court, had to do for themselves the internal repairs and decorations. The external repairs and improvements of the fabric came, however, under the present Vote. His hon. Friend the Member for Burnley had called attention to the cost of Hampton Court Palace. No doubt Hampton Court Palace was a very large building. He did not think that hon. Members could have any idea of its extent, or of the consequent obligations of all kinds which it entailed in the shape of repairs. Reference had been made to Longford Canal. That was a small canal, which supplied Hampton Court with water. It was 10 miles long, and it cost £600 a-year to keep it in repair. That was one of the items which required to be paid in connection with the maintenance of a Palace of this kind, which covered more than four acres of land. It was not necessary that he should detain the Committee with further details in reference to Hampton Court. Mention had been made of the Royal Mews at Pimlico, and the same subject gave rise to some discussion last year. He had inquired into the matter during the Recess, and he had come to the conclusion that it was a much larger work than most hon. Members supposed. The establishment covered 3¾ acres of ground, and there were no less than 230 persons permanently living there. He was quite surprised, when he investigated the case, at the extent of the establishment. There were a great number of official residences in the Mews, including those of the Crown Equerries. There was provision for 147 horses, and more than 100 horses were permanently located in the stables there. The permanent establishment consisted of 17 very large coach-houses, containing between 70 and 80 carriages; a riding school, 200 feet long by 50 feet wide; and a large number of rooms and establishments of various kinds. There were official residences for the Crown Equerries, the Master of the Horse, the clerks and superintendents of the Royal Stables, grooms and coachmen; and, as he had just stated, there were no less than 230 per-
    200
    sons permanently residing there. Considering the large number of persons accommodated, the sum charged in the Vote was not, he thought, excessive. The hon. and gallant Member behind him (Sir George Balfour) asked what changes had been effected in the Estimates of the present year as compared with those submitted last year. The only change he was aware of was the transfer of Vote 3 to Vote 8. He thought he had now answered all the points which had been raised in the course of the discussion.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the right hon. Gentleman to explain the difference between the sum of £110 last year and the sum of £500 this year for the Longford River Canal?
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that, if the hon. Member would refer to the Vote last year, he would find that the charge amounted altogether to £680.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, if he was to understand that 230 great officers of State were placed in the loose boxes and stalls of the Royal Mews at Pimlico, it was a pitiable and lamentable state of things, which fully justified him in moving the reduction of the Vote in regard to the maintenance of those Palaces which were not in the occupation of Her Majesty at the public expense. If these persons were really squatting in the Royal Mews, he had no doubt that, so long as there were any apartments vacant in the Palaces, there would be some persons squatting in them, so as to necessitate a charge for repairs and maintenance. He wished to say one word with regard to Hampton Court Stud House. The country was called upon to pay for the maintenance of the Stud House; but, so far as the foals which were the produce of that Stud House were concerned, the money they brought evidently went to somebody else.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that the Stud House at Hampton Court had long been established for the breeding of horses, and had always been kept up.
    MR. LABOUCHEREasked what became of the foals?
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he was not aware.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, that the Vote, as it appeared in the Estimates, was apparently reduced by

    201
    the sum of £4,000 from what it was last year. As a matter of fact, however, it really exceeded the Vote of last year by the sum of £600; because the original Vote of last year was for £36,033, whereas the sum now asked for was £36,633. They were told there was a reduction, because last year there was an accidental increase of £4,000, which was included in the Supplementary Estimate. From the manner in which the Vote had been drawn up, it appeared that there had been a reduction of £4,000; whereas the real Vote of last year was £36,033, against an Estimate now prepared this year of £36,633. Therefore, as a matter of fact, instead of there being a reduction this year as compared with last, there was an increase, and the supposed economy did not really exist. The additional expenditure included in the Supplementary Estimates was for works at Hampton Court Palace in consequence of the fire, and it was an expenditure which he hoped they would not expect to have every year. He thought the right way of treating the Estimate would have been to put the original Estimate of last year against the original Estimate of this year, and then add to that £4,000 for accidental expenditure incurred during the year, with the expression of the hope that it would not be repeated. So far, however, from taking credit for economy, it appeared to him that the Government had actually increased the expenditure. He gave his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works every credit for being actuated by a desire to effect economy; but, nevertheless, the actual expenditure this year upon the Royal Palaces was £600 more than it was last year.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he did not mean to deny that £36,000 was the original Vote asked for last year, and that it was supplemented by a sum of £4,000 on account of the fire at Hampton Court Palace; but against that item he was entitled to put the sum of £3,900 asked for this year in continuation of the provision against fire of Hampton Court. He, therefore, still contended that, compared with the original Estimate of last year, there had been a reduction of more than £3,000, of which sum £2,400 were due to reductions in the cost of maintenance and repairs.
    MR. DICK-PEDDIEsaid, the First Commissioner had stated that, in the
    202
    case of Palaces not in the occupation of Her Majesty, provision was made in the Estimate for exterior repairs only. Now, he wished to point out that for Kensington Palace, which was a plain building of no very great extent, there was an estimated expenditure of £1,233. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Commissioner of Works if that was really the average annual expenditure for the maintenance of the exterior of the building? It certainly seemed to him an unreasonable sum for such a plain building as Kensington Palace, which was of very limited dimensions.
    MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTwished to protest against the assumption which ran through the remarks of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) in reference to the observations which he (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) had made. He had not said one word with regard to extravagance, or against the principle of economy wherever it was practicable. All he had said was that he regarded the manner in which apartments in Hampton Court Palace were employed as a useful means of providing homes for the widows and relations of officers who had rendered distinguished service to the Crown. He protested against the time of the Committee being wasted by pseudo-economists sitting on the other side of the House, who sought to gain a certain amount of notoriety by making serio-comic criticisms upon petty details of expenditure in regard to the Royal Palaces. He confessed that he was unable to find any sufficient reason for the criticisms which had been advanced. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) commenced his observations by commenting upon Bushy Park; but, finding himself unable to make out any case in regard to that item, he quickly passed over it. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), casting his expansive eye down the list of items included in the Vote, was only able to fix upon the Royal Mews at Pimlico; and it appeared that the hon. Member was entirely unaware of the size of those Mews, or of the number of grooms, and even officers of State who were housed there. This was a clear case of wasting the time of the Committee. Before the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) came down to the House

    203
    for the purpose of attacking this Vote, he ought to have informed himself whether the expenditure was excessive or not, and so also should the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands). Neither hon. Member had done so; but one had selected an item in the Vote containing a number of odd names in it, and the other had chosen the Pimlico Royal Mews. Both of these pseudo-economists had been bowled over in a moment by the Minister in charge of the Estimate. This was an unfortunate position for these economists to place themselves in. Let them, if they could, bring to the notice of the Committee any real case of extravagance; but they should not waste the time of the Committee by criticizing trivial items of expenditure, when they were so ready to go into the Lobby with Her Majesty's Government to vote away millions for some unnecessary war in Egypt. To do that one day, and then to object to an item of £500 for certain Royal residences, and to another item of £1,200 for the Royal Mews, was ridiculous inconsistency. Hon. Members knew very well that the cost of Royalty in this country was very much less than the cost of other forms of government elsewhere, and that it was infinitely less than the cost of the Republic of France, or the Republic of America. He ventured, with great respect, to advise the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) and the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) to study the matter more carefully in future before making these complaints.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, that if the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) desired a sufficient reason for voting in favour of the proposed reduction he would be able to find it in the manner in which the charges for Windsor Home Park and Adelaide Lodge, Windsor Royal Kitchen Garden, and Frogmore House and grounds were provided for. These were under the Office of Works, while Windsor Park was under the Commissioners of Woods and Forests; and owing to the divided authority which prevailed a great deal of extravagance took place. Nothing could be more extravagant than the way in which the expenditure was administered under the divided authority of the Chief Commissioner of Works and the Commissioners of Woods
    204
    and Forests. The items in this case amounted to £3,000; and if the hon. Member wished to have a good reason for voting in favour of the reduction proposed by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) he would find it in this part of the Vote. Anyone who had a competent knowledge of expenditure of this kind would be satisfied that if the whole estate were administered by one authority, £2,000 would only be a small part of the cost that would be saved.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided: — Ayes 32; Noes 74: Majority 42. — (Div. List, No. 64.)
    Original Question again proposed.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURwished to ask a question in reference to the unoccupied Palaces. He wished to know who it was who nominated the persons who occupied the apartments in these buildings? There was no one in that House who would be more delighted than himself to find that deserving officers were able to obtain apartments in the Royal residences; but he was afraid that many of the persons for whom provision was made were not entitled to such costly consideration from the country as this occupation involved. The First Commissioner of Works had been invited to state the nature of the agreement made with Her Majesty on her accession to the Throne; and he thought the Committee ought to know from the right hon. Gentleman what that agreement was. He had no hesitation in saying that if the persons now permitted to occupy apartments in the Royal Palaces were allowed £500 a-year each instead, it would be a more economical arrangement for the country.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the Palaces not in the occupation of Her Majesty were at the disposal of Her Majesty; and it depended entirely upon Her Majesty's favour who were to occupy the apartments.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked if he was to understand that all the Palaces unoccupied were at Her Majesty's entire disposal? [Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE: Yes.] He hoped the Government would consent to lay the agreement with Her Majesty upon the

    205
    Table, so that hon. Members might understand what the nature of its provisions was.
    MR. TOMLINSONpointed out that Pembroke Lodge had been occupied by Earl Russell, and another Royal building by Sir Richard Owen.
    Original Question put, and agreed, to.
    (2.) £1,160, Marlborough House.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, he would be glad if his right hon. Friend the Chief Commissioner of Works would lay on the Table of the House the formal agreement under which the Government undertook, as Trustees of the public, to maintain certain Palaces not in the occupation of Her Majesty, because he had reason to believe that Marlborough House was not looked upon as one of those Palaces.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREremarked that Marlborough House came under a separate agreement.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, that, under those circumstances, he would ask his right hon. Friend under what arrangement or agreement Marlborough House was chargeable for its repairs upon the public funds? He believed he could say with perfect confidence, acting on what he believed to be sufficient information, that some years ago the Treasury refused to allow the repairs of Marlborough House to be chargeable on the Exchequer. That went on for some time, until the noble Lord the Member for Chichester (Lord Henry Lennox), who was then First Commissioner of Works, acting upon the application of the Prince of Wales, placed this charge for the first time upon the Estimates. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman might not be aware that this was so. If his right hon. Friend did not know it, he (Mr. Rylands) would be glad if he would inquire as to whether he (Mr. Rylands) had been accurately informed of the circumstances under which this charge had come upon the Estimates. Whether he was accurately informed or not, he had received the information from a gentleman who formerly occupied a high position in the Treasury; and, at all events, the Committee had a right to ask upon what authority this charge was placed upon the taxpayers? His right hon. Friend said that it did not come under the agreement with the Crown. [Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE: No.] He
    206
    understood his right hon. Friend to say so; and he should be glad if he could have the agreement put upon the Table, as it would show what the character of the agreement with the Crown really was. If this charge for Marlborough. House did not come under the agreement with the Crown, then under what arrangement was the charge placed upon the taxpayers? It seemed to him a very important matter that the Committee should get to know that. If it was not right to charge the expense of maintaining and repairing Marlborough House upon the Civil Service Estimates, the whole thing ought to be done away with. If, on the other hand, it was right to place the charge upon the Exchequer, he thought they ought to complain of the excessive amounts which appeared from year to year in these Votes. The right hon. Gentleman would say, no doubt, that the present Vote showed a diminution, and he (Mr. Rylands) was glad to find that there had been a diminution as compared with the amount voted last year; but, still, the sum put down for the repairs and maintenance of Marlborough House was no less than £2,160, a sum which he considered altogether excessive and extravagant. In regard to the amount by which the Vote had been reduced, £400 arose from the fact that the building last year cost £400 for outside painting, which, of course, was not required this year. It did appear to him that £2,160 was a very much larger amount than ought to be charged upon the Exchequer for the maintenance and ordinary repair of a house of this size; and although he was not prepared to move the reduction of the Vote, seeing that the Estimate had already been reduced, and he was in hopes that it would be still further reduced in other years, he trusted that he might receive from his right hon. Friend information—first of all, in justification of this charge being placed upon the Vote at all; and, secondly, a satisfactory intimation as to the prospect of further economy in future in this large expenditure.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that Marlborough House did not come within the category of Royal Palaces, and had never been considered a Royal Palace in the same sense as other Palaces occupied by the Crown, nor was it subject to the agreement made with Her Ma-

    207
    jesty when she came to the Throne; but by a special Ant of Parliament, passed in 1860, Her Majesty was authorized to vest Marlborough House in the Prince of Wales during the joint lives of himself and the Queen. It had accordingly been so vested by Act of Parliament in the Prince of Wales during the life of Her Majesty, For many years the repairs were undertaken by His Royal Highness himself, who spent no less than £50,000 in improving Marlborough House; and in 1878, in consideration of that large expenditure, the late Government undertook to insert an annual sum of £2,000, or thereabouts, in the Estimates for the repair of this dwelling house of His Royal Highness, and since that time an item for the repairs had always been voted every year by Parliament. For some two or three years past the expenditure had been something over £2,000; but he was happy to say that it had now been brought down to about that sum, and he had reason to hope that it might be further reduced in future. The repairs some time ago had been allowed to get into arrear, and it was necessary to expend a larger sum than would be required permanently. These arrears had now been completed, and he entertained hopes that there would be some reduction in the amount of this item in future.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, he was not satisfied with the explanation given with regard to this item. He believed that until 1878 the Treasury had declined to accept responsibility for the repairs. In that year, however, under the auspices of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, the noble Lord the Member for Chichester (Lord Henry Lennox), then Chief Commissioner of Works, acting on the application of the Prince of Wales, made the cost of them a charge upon the Public Revenue. For this, in his (Mr. Rylands's) opinion, there was no justification at all; and he begged to give Notice that if the charge appeared on the Estimates of next year he should feel it his duty to move that it be rejected. He thought the Committee were entitled to further information as to the circumstances under which this charge was placed upon the British taxpayer; and although he should not move its rejection on the present occasion, he could assure his right hon. Friend that, in his opinion, the time had come
    208
    when it should disappear from the Estimates.
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he thought the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), carried away by his virtuous indignation, had omitted to notice the explanation of his right hon. Friend. The hon. Member had said that His Royal Highness would not in common prudence have expended this money on building's that were not his own. Had the hon. Member heard the statement of his right hon. Friend he would not have indulged in some of the observations which had fallen from him.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDasked why the charge for repairs to Marlborough House were not upon the Estimates before the year 1878?
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that Marlborough House had been specially vested in His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. In that respect it differed from Clarence House, which had always been considered one of the Palaces of the Crown.
    Vote agreed to.
    (3.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £91,685, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1885, for the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens."
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, he had a Motion to make for the reduction of this Vote by the sum of £2,000, for the expenses of removal of the statue of the Duke of Wellington from Hyde Park Corner. He had, however, no wish to shut out the Motion of any hon. Member who might wish to reduce the Vote by a larger sum.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he wished to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) to the fact that the road through St. James's Park had been shut up for a considerable time. Generally speaking, that was the case more than once during the year. He saw on the Estimate a charge for maintenance of £23,695, which he presumed would include the road between St. James's Palace Gate and Buckingham Palace Gate, through which the traffic ordinarily passed. Now, he believed that the repairs that were necessary could

    209
    be done in a much shorter time than was usually spent upon them, so as to mitigate, in some degree, the great inconvenience which was occasioned to the inhabitants of London whenever the stoppage of the road in question took place. He would like to know the amount expended upon that road, and whether the work was done by contract? If that were the case, he was bound to say that the contract was every year carried out in a very dilatory manner. He had seen the stones put upon the road, and could assure the Committee that, instead of the work being got through expeditiously, not more than a half-day's work was done on the average. Hon. Members would be aware that in any other capital of Europe arrangements would be made, under similar circumstances, to re-open the thoroughfare immediately by working day and night; but here a lengthened stoppage of traffic was allowed to take place, which, he ventured to say, was very detrimental to business of all kinds. He should be glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman opposite why it was that so long a time was occupied in these repairs; and whether it was not possible to make some better arrangement with regard to them than at present existed? The suggestion that the road should be paved with wood had been met by the objection that this would not be in keeping with the characteristics of the Park, although a side path of asphalte had been laid down. However that might be, he thought it would be preferable to the present state of things. If the work was in the hands of a contractor it was evident to him that he charged more money, and consumed more time, than was necessary for effecting the repairs. For these reasons, he believed that any information which the right hon. Gentleman could give on the subject would be interesting and useful to the inhabitants of London, and to the people of the country generally.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he could not at that moment separate the cost of repairing the road referred to by the hon. and gallant Baronet from the cost of the other repairs stated in the Estimate. An inquiry, however, should be made into the matter, the result of which should be communicated to the hon. and gallant Baronet, and
    210
    with that assurance he trusted the Vote would be allowed to pass.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he did not think the Committee ought to be satisfied with the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, that he could not separate the item of cost for the repair of the road in question. Was it the case that the cost of the flower-beds in the Park was mixed up with the charge for repairs? He remembered that some years ago a large reduction of the Vote was moved in connection with a charge for tulips, which was, however, withdrawn on its being shown that a considerable advantage resulted from the arrangement; but here was an enormous sum charged for repairs, as to which the Committee could obtain no explanation whatever. They were certainly entitled to this; and, for his own part, he should not be satisfied unless further information were forthcoming.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the repairs were in connection with the road through Hyde Park, St. James's Park, and the Green Park; he could not, therefore, separate from the rest the cost of repairing the portion of the road from St. James's to Birdcage Walk; but, as he had already stated, he would inquire into the matter, and let the hon. and gallant Baronet know the result.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT: Is the work done by contract?
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: No.
    MR. GORSTsaid, with reference to the contribution of £400 per annum from Indian Funds towards the cost of the Kew Establishment, that he should like to know what were the services rendered by that establishment to India which justified the charge; how long it had gone on, and how long it was intended to be continued?
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, the arrangement was one of some standing. The contribution was partly for the purpose of maintaining the Museum, containing specimens illustrative of the produce of their Indian Empire, and partly for the services of the experienced gentleman, who had charge of the Collection. He was not cognizant of the particular cases in which services had been rendered to India under this arrangement; but from his own experience at the Colonial Office he was in a position to say that the references made to Kew in respect of the Colonies were very numerous; and

    211
    he had no doubt that the work done at Kew in relation to the Indian Empire was of considerable value. Take the case of the diseases of trees and plants, for instance. One subject of great importance—the disease in the coffee plant in the Island of Ceylon—had been investigated at Kew, and similar questions had arisen and been investigated there in respect of other Colonies.
    MR. GORSTsaid, he thought this was an instance of the petty injustice committed by Her Majesty's Government upon India. The Secretary to the Treasury said there were services of great value and of similar character rendered to the Colonies. Now, would the hon. Gentleman venture to suggest to the Australian Colonies that they should vote sums of money to be spent at Kew? [Mr. COURTNEY: Yes.] Had the hon. Gentleman ever done so? The Government had the Revenues of India under their hand; they took this money out of those Revenues; but they dared not take a halfpenny from the Colonies for similar purposes. He said the Committee were entitled to some better explanation than they had received from the Secretary to the Treasury on this subject. If the Government intended to make Kew an Imperial Establishment, contributed to by every Colony whose products and flora were represented there, it would be well if they announced that policy at once. It seemed to him extraordinary that they should select the one Dependency of India, and make it contribute to the maintenance of the Establishment.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, the question of contribution had reached a practical shape in the case of the Australian Colonies. If the Colonies stood in the same relative position as India, there would, no doubt, be a contribution from them. There was no ground whatever for the statement that the Government made India contribute to the maintenance of the Kew Establishment.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLagreed with the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) that India was always made to contribute in matters of this kind, and not the Colonies. The Botanic Gardens at Calcutta rendered great service to this country and to the Colonies; and he should be glad to know whether any compensation was made for the amount of work done in that respect?
    SIR HERBERT MAXWELLobserved, that the sum of £100 was voted annually for the payment of experts for naming cryptogams. He wished to know whether this sum was paid for the invention of new names for new cryptogams, or for the correct naming of existing cryptogams? In the former case he thought the work might be done for less; and in the latter case that it might be done by the officials of the Establishment.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, he rose to move the omission of the item of £2,000 under Sub-head E, in connection with the alterations made at Hyde Park Corner. In doing so, as he had already said, he did not wish to shut out any hon. Gentleman who might desire to reduce the Vote by a larger sum. Now, his right hon. Friend the Chief Commissioner of Works had given the House last year some information with regard to the statue of the Duke of Wellington. On that occasion he said that a Committee had been appointed, of which he was a Member, and that that Committee had recommended that the statue of the Duke should be broken up; that the metal should be sold; and that the proceeds should be devoted to the cost of a new statue to be erected after competition had taken place; the object being to obtain a new equestrian statue of high character by the hand of a British sculptor. Since that time, however, the whole position had changed. The original Committee had disappeared, and a private Committee—not a body representing the Government—had come into existence. His right hon. Friend, in order, as he supposed, to distinguish it from the Committee appointed last year, had described this as an Executive Committee; and that Committee, of which his right Friend was not a Member, had formed an entirely different plan with regard to the statue. They no longer proposed what was felt by many to be the Vandalism of breaking up this famous statue. He did not know whether this had resulted from the fact that one of the Colonies had offered to pay a larger sum for the statue than would be produced by the sale of the old metal. However that might be, the former arrangement had been given up, and it was proposed that the statue should be removed from Hyde Park Corner and placed at Aldershot. But the great de-

    213
    parture from the plan of the former Committee was that there should be no competition, and that the commission should be given to Mr. Boehm. There was the secret of this devolution. The Committee had been established by some means or other; and they gave Mr. Boehm permission to execute the statue, without other artists being allowed to compete. History repeated itself. His right hon. Friend, in an interesting article on the statues and monuments of London, had said, with reference to Bacon's monument of Chatham in Westminster Abbey—
    "The sculptor appears to have outwitted his rivals in obtaining an order for the monument in the Abbey; for while the members of the Royal Academy were considering the terms of a competition, he went direct to the King, who said to him—'Bacon, Bacon, you shall make Chatham's monument, and no one else.'"
    It was precisely similar in the present case. While the Executive Committee were considering the terms of the competition, Mr. Boehm had waited on an illustrious personage, who had given him the commission. He (Mr. Rylands) said that the original plan of the Committee, that there should be competition, ought to be adhered to. He knew one sculptor who, in consequence of the statement of his right hon. Friend that there would be competition, had gone to great expense and trouble in preparing models of an equestrian group; and, although he was not aware of the fact, others might have done the same. His right hon. Friend said that artists were disinclined to compete in this case. No doubt they were under certain conditions; but he was sure that if the work were left quite open to competition, a work would be produced worthy of their great sculptors. He had no wish to depreciate Mr. Boehm; but did that gentleman occupy such a position that the work could be placed in his hand with the feeling that the result would necessarily be a success? Hon. Gentlemen would be familiar with the statue of Lord Lawrence, which his right hon. Friend had described as—
    "By no means a satisfactory figure, in an attitude singularly at variance with his dignified and modest demeanour."
    That criticism appeared to him most gentle; and, for his own part, he should speak of the statue in a very different way; he would say that the attitude, the
    214
    clothing, and the protuberance of body, as well as the vulgarity of features, would lead anyone to suppose that it was intended to represent a tapster of a hostelry in times gone by. Again, what did The St. James's Gazette say about the statue of Lord Beaconsfield in Westminster Abbey? The opinion expressed was that—
    "It is little more than a caricature; it might, in fact, have been taken from one of the more ill-natured of Mr. Tenniel's cartoons. The look of superficial keenness, which ceased to be the characteristic of Mr. Disraeli's features long before he won the right to wear the Earl's coronet, is the only look Mr. Boehm has caught; the thought and responsibility of the Prime Minister find no expression whatever. The action, too, is not appropriate to the place; while the treatment of the Peer's robe is clumsy and ungraceful."
    He was bound to say that this criticism appeared to him justifiable. When he looked upon the statue of Lord Beacons-field from one point—he would not say from every point—it reminded him of nothing so much as one of "Spy's" cartoons in Vanity Fair. It did not strike him as being of the highest order of Art; and while he did not dispute for one moment Mr. Boehm's great ability as a sculptor, he could not but feel that he did not occupy that position amongst the sculptors of the country which would justify his having the commission to the exclusion of every other artist. He regarded this as a serious departure from the intention of the original Committee, and he considered that everyone who took that view should support the Amendment he was about to move. If there was to be a statue without competition, undertaken under the proposed conditions, he would rather see the statue of the Duke of Wellington placed upon a large pedestal in the neighbourhood with which it had always been associated than run the risk of having a similar statue executed under conditions which might render the statue less satisfactory than the existing statue. There were some people who very much disliked the idea of the statue being taken to Aldershot; and he would ask them to join him in this Vote, and in that way to request the Government to reconsider the whole matter and to get rid of this Executive Committee, and come to the House of Commons upon a subsequent occasion with a proposal more likely to meet with the approval of the House.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the Item of £2,000, the Contribution of Her Majesty's Government for a New Statue of the Duke of Wellington, be omitted from the proposed Vote."—(Mr. Rylands.)
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLwished to make a few remarks in consequence of what had fallen from the hon. Member for Burnley. It seemed to him very much to be regretted that the Government cared so little for the encouragement of British Art that they had allowed a great work of this kind to be given to a gentleman who, however distinguished, was not of British birth; and that they had also thought it within their duty to break faith with the House of Commons, and depart from the pledge which was solemnly given by the First Commissioner of Works last year, on the strength of which he induced the House of Commons to agree to his Vote. He did not at all agree with the hon. Member for Burnley as to the work of Mr. Boehm, because he imagined there were not two opinions amongst English artists that, in regard to English or foreign sculpture, Mr. Boehm had no superior. He believed that opinion would command considerable assent at home and abroad among artists; and, at any rate, if there was to be a new statue, the public would have some security, if it was to be intrusted to Mr. Boehm, that it would be a statue invested with a high degree of artistic merit. But he rose rather to appeal to the Government, and particularly to the Prime Minister—and to what he might say were the well-known Tory instincts of the Prime Minister on matters in which no Party issues were raised—to allow the statue not only to be preserved, but replaced. He was certain that the Prime Minister could do no act which would add more to his well-known popularity with the people of London, and with the English people generally, than by stepping in and diverting from this well-known statue the disgrace and destruction with which it was threatened. It was understood that the statue was to be carted off to Aldershot, and placed in some corner of the Aldershot Camp, where nobody would see it, except the soldiers stationed there. The statue was intimately connected with everybody's earliest ideas of the military history of the Great Duke, and, in fact, of the great exploits of the British Army.
    216
    He himself never could agree with the criticisms which had been passed upon the statue as to its being inartistic in its position on the top of the Arch. It was a curious fact that in that very spiteful and ill-natured book, written by a very clever Frenchman, entitled John Bull and his Island—a book which was widely read, and in which everything in England was held up to very bitter and, in many cases, very true criticism—the writer, while finding fault with almost everything else in this country, expressed approval of this statue. That, he thought, was testimony of a strong order against those who criticized this statue. In fact, all the criticism of the statue had come from aesthetic persons, with whom the statue was something quite "too-too." Artists of the present day were a great deal too much under the domination of that school, which he believed was generally supposed to be represented in that House by the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour). That hon. Member would, no doubt, give the Committee the reasons why that particular school of aestheticism should object to the statue; and, for himself, while he would not further take up the time of the Committee, he must express the earnest hope that the Prime Minister would consider this subject worthy of his special attention, not only as Prime Minister, but as one of the greatest authorities on Art in this country, and would see if he could not meet the wishes of an enormous majority of the people by replacing the statue upon the Arch where it formerly stood.
    SIR ROBERT PEELobserved, that this question of granting £2,000 would be dealt with, he apprehended, in a Bill which had not yet been read a second time—namely, the Hyde Park Corner Improvement Bill.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that was merely a matter of repairing roads.
    SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he was sorry that that was the case, and that the Bill did not deal with the question of removing the statue of the Great Duke. He agreed with his noble Friend, and, to a considerable extent, with what had fallen from the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), that it would be far better to replace the statue where it formerly stood. In 1838 Her Majesty gave her direct sanction to the locality selected, and the Committee who had

    217
    charge of the matter concurred in the advisability of placing the statue there; and he hoped that the Government, having moved the Archway from its old position, would follow the advice of his noble Friend, and replace the statue on the top of the Arch. The expense of carting the statue down to Aldershot would be considerable; and he thought the Government might just as well send it to the Nile, or anywhere else, if it was not to be allowed to remain in London, where everybody would have an opportunity of seeing the features of the Great Duke. If necessary, he would second the proposal to reduce this Vote by £2,000; but he could not quite agree with what had been said about Mr. Boehm. The hon. Member for Burnley had said he knew of one sculptor who he thought would be far preferable to Mr. Boehm.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, he had not meant that. He had simply alluded to the fact that one sculptor, acting on the statement that there would be a competition, had gone to great expense, with a view to a competition, and that he felt aggrieved at not being allowed to compete.
    SIR ROBERT PEEL: Yes; he had gone to great expense with a model for an equestrian statue, and he felt aggrieved at being excluded from the competition. He himself was not concerned with the qualifications of the persons who were to be charged with the new statue; he was entirely against any new statue at all. He maintained that the old statue ought to remain where it was; and he should vote now, and on every other occasion, against the proposal, and try to save the country from the enormous expense which would be entailed by carting away this statue to Aldershot, and the alleged contemplated improvements consequent thereupon. Every statue in London was probably bad, and this was not a question of Art, but of sentiment; but if there was a good statue foreign opinion was, perhaps, more valuable than English opinion on matters of Art; and certainly the foreign writer already referred to had expressed himself strongly in approval of this statue. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give some assurance to the Committee and to London that the statue of the Great Duke would not be ignominiously carted away to Aldershot,
    218
    or elsewhere; but that it would remain where Her Majesty wished it to be in 1838, and where the country wished it still to remain.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that with regard to the wish of the right hon. Baronet, that the statue should be replaced on the Arch, he must remind the Committee that the original intention of the Government and of himself was to remove the Arch bodily with the statue upon it; for they were well aware that whenever that statue came down it would be extremely difficult to determine where it should be placed, and wished to prevent that difficulty arising. But the members of the Royal Academy unanimously petitioned the Government to take advantage of the opportunity to remove the statue altogether; without a single dissentient, the members of the Royal Academy petitioned the Government to that effect, and stated that, in their opinion, the position of the statue on the Arch was utterly opposed to every canon of taste; that it was a disgrace to Art that the statue should be in that position upon an arch; and that it was totally unsuitable to the Arch. Upon that the Government came to the conclusion that the statue should, at all events, be removed from the Arch; and accordingly the Arch was pulled down, and the statue brought to the ground. He then appointed a Committee to advise the Government as to what should be done in the matter; and he believed the appointment gave general satisfaction, the gentlemen appointed being regarded as representing Art as fully as any gentlemen that could be selected. Upon that Committee were Sir Frederick Leighton, Lord Hardinge, the present Duke of Wellington, and three or four other gentlemen. The Committee at first recommended that the statue should be placed in front of the Horse Guards; and they gave as one reason for that suggestion, and for not keeping it at Hyde Park Corner, that owing to the huge size of the statue, if it was placed on a suitable pedestal it would overpower and crush its surroundings, and so could not be maintained in front of Apsley House. They reluctantly recommended its removal; but believed that in front of the Horse Guards it would be in a less objectionable position, and its defects would be less glaring. That was the first recommendation of

    219
    this Committee, which, when it was appointed, gave general satisfaction to the House. As the House would recollect, a model of the statue was erected in front of the Horse Guards; but he must admit it gave general dissatisfaction, and he then referred the question again to the Committee; and after further consideration of the matter the Committee came to the conclusion that there was no place in London where they could recommend the statue being placed on account of its very great size and its artistic defects, and they then recommended that it should be re-cast and a new statue should be made and placed at Hyde Park Corner. The Government assented to that proposal, and he informed the House last autumn that they would ask the House to vote £6,000 for a new statue. He also stated that the work would be offered for competition, and that he should invite a limited number of the principal sculptors to compete. But in the course of the Recess it came to his knowledge that the proposal to break up the statue would not give satisfaction to the country and to the Army; and it therefore became impossible to carry out that part of the recommendation of the Committee. At that stage of the matter His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales came forward, and proposed that if the Government would undertake to carry out the proposal to spend the £6,000 on a new statue, he would put himself at the head of a movement to further decorate the new place at Hyde Park Corner; and he suggested that the statue should be moved to Aldershot, where it could be placed in a position in view of the whole Army. That appeared to be a fair compromise for dealing with this extremely difficult subject, and it also offered an opportunity of decorating Hyde Park Corner in a suitable way. The Government acceded to that proposal, and His Royal Highness then appointed an Executive Committee to advise him generally on the whole question as to what should be done in the way of decoration; and that Committee was the one alluded to by the hon. Member for Burnley. It included all the Members whom he had himself appointed, and many other distinguished men; and the Committee could see the Report of that Committee, which had been laid upon the Table. That Com-
    220
    mittee again went into the question of the disposal of the present statue, and considered all the possible sites where it might be placed in London; and they came to the conclusion that they could not recommend any site in London itself, on the ground mainly of the colossal size of the statue, which would crush all its surroundings; and that if it was placed on a suitable pedestal, it would be out of place in any site which had been suggested in London. They, therefore, concluded that the plan of removing it to Aldershot was, on the whole, the best plan; and accordingly the Government now made that proposal to the Committee, in accordance with the recommendation of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, that the statue should be removed, and a new statue be executed to be placed at Hyde Park Corner. With regard to the question of competition, immediately after he made a statement last autumn that there would be a competition, he received from the present Duke of Wellington a very strong protest against that proposal, in which he said it would be impossible to obtain a good work of Art in that way, and that he objected very strongly to that course. He further said that he would never have given his consent to any dealing with the statue if he had understood that there would be a competition for a new statue. The Government felt that great deference ought to be paid to the present Duke of Wellington in this matter. [An hon. MEMBER: Why?] On the question of sentiment. The Government felt that his views were entitled to very great consideration. Moreover, he made inquiries as to the sculptors who were likely to compete in this limited competition, and three of the most distinguished sculptors who were approached stated that they would not enter into a competition for a work of this kind. Under these circumstances, and looking to the objections raised by the Duke of Wellington, and, above all, finding that the most eminent sculptors would not compete, the Government determined to leave the selection of a sculptor to the Executive Committee appointed by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. That Committee discussed the matter, and they came to the unanimous opinion that Mr. Boehm should be intrusted with the execution of the new statue, and that selection was further ratified

    221
    by a large meeting of distinguished men —60 or 70 in number—held at Marlborough House, under the Presidency of the Prince of Wales. The hon. Member for Burnley had made some remarks on the artistic work of Mr. Boehm, and had been good enough to quote from an article which he (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had written for one of the Reviews on the monuments of London, in which he had made some unfavourable comments on one of Mr. Boehm's works—namely, the statue of Lord Lawrence. The hon. Member might have quoted from the same article that he had praised Mr. Boehm's statue of Mr. Carlyle as one of the best statues in London; and he thought it right to state that Mr. Boehm had himself written to him thanking him for his remarks on the statues of Lord Lawrence and Mr. Carlyle, stating that he entirely agreed with those remarks, and was so dissatisfied himself with the former statue that he was at that very moment occupied upon another statue of Lord Lawrence, which he hoped would replace the existing statue. That he thought, was a very generous act on the part of Mr. Boehm, and one which entitled him to great consideration by that House. Mr. Boehm had executed many other very important monuments and statues in London, amongst others one of the late Dean Stanley in Westminster Abbey, which would do great credit to any sculptor. He was sorry the hon. Member had alluded to Mr. Boehm as a foreigner, and that the noble Lord opposite (Lord Randolph Churchill) had expressed regret that the Government should have intrusted this matter to a foreigner who, he thought, would not have sufficiently studied British Art. He had never thought of the consideration whether Mr. Boehm was an Englishman or not; but Mr. Boehm was a member of the Royal Academy, and therefore he thought Mr. Boehm might, for the purposes of sculpture in this country, be considered an Englishman. In this connection he would remind the noble Lord that when the admirers of his late Leader, Lord Beaconsfield, had to choose a sculptor to execute a statue of Lord Beaconsfield in Parliament Square, they selected a foreigner, Signer Raggi, who had produced a work of high art, such as he was glad to see in this country. Many of the best works, in the way of sculpture, in this country had been
    222
    executed by gentlemen who, at least, had been naturalized in this country, and had brought great credit to England. He need hardly remind the Committee of the splendid works of Roubilliac, and others who were foreigners by birth, as Mr. Boehm was; and he ventured to hope that no more would be heard of this argument, and that Mr. Boehm might be considered, for this purpose at all events, an English sculptor. He believed that Mr. Boehm was almost the only living sculptor who had produced equestrian statues. He had produced two equestrian statues which had done him great credit. Both of these were he believed, in Calcutta, one of them being a statue of the Prince of Wales, and both had acquired for him great repute in the civilized world. On the whole, therefore, he thought the Committee might be perfectly satisfied with the selection of a sculptor made by the Executive Committee. The only question which remained for the Committee to consider was whether, on the whole, the proposal which had been made by the Prince of Wales, and which was now submitted by the Government, was worthy of their consideration. That proposal certainly offered this advantage—that it would enable the decorations of the new place at Hyde Park Corner to be completed. That place was at present in an unfinished state; it required fountains and other works of Art to complete it; and it was proposed by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, if the Committee consented to this Vote, and that part of the work was carried out, to appeal to the public for funds to complete the scheme. If the Committee did not agree to that Vote the whole arrangement would fail, and it would be difficult to say what could then be done. The right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) had expressed a wish that the statue might be replaced on the Arch, and he had complained of the great cost of removing it to Alder-shot; but he did not appear to know what the cost of replacing the statue on the Arch would be. He had had an estimate made when the removal was first contemplated, and the amount estimated for replacing the statue was £3,500. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Who made it?] The same contractor who made the estimate for the original removal.
    COLONEL NOLANasked how much it had cost to take the statue down?
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the statue was brought down at the cost of removing the Arch—there was no separate item. Hon. Members seemed to think that the cost of removing the statue to Aldershot would be excessive; but that was not the case. He could not say exactly what it would be; but it would not be a very large amount.
    COLONEL NOLAN: What is the estimate?
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the estimate was £3,200. The statue was cast in four pieces, which were soldered together. It could be removed to Alder-shot piecemeal.
    COLONEL NOLAN: What does it weigh?
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREreplied that its weight was 40 tons. All that the plan now suggested would cost was £6,000; £2,000 this year, and £4,000 in the following two years. No further expense would be incurred. The whole of the cost of the removal to Aldershot, and placing the statue on such pedestal as was necessary, would be undertaken by the Committee appointed under the auspices of the Prince of Wales; so that, on the one hand, the Committee would give £6,000, and, on the other, a considerable sum of money would, it was believed, be raised on the appeal of His Royal Highness, to place the statue on the pedestal, to get a new statue, and ornament Hyde Park Corner. He might mention that the present Duke of Wellington entirely approved of this plan; and, as a matter of sentiment, it could not be denied that this approval must go a long way. His Grace agreed that they were doing all they could to honour the memory of his father; and that the statue which it was proposed to place at Hyde Park Corner would be worthy the fame of the Great Duke.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLdesired to make a personal explanation. The right hon. Gentleman had misunderstood his reference to Mr. Boehm. He had not taken any exception to that gentleman as a foreigner; and all he had expressed surprise at was that the Government had departed from the solemn pledge they gave to the House of Commons last Session that the contemplated statue was to be thrown open to competition by British artists. He
    224
    had said that he had the highest regard for Mr. Boehm as an artist; and, so far from throwing any imputation on him, he believed that, as a sculptor, he was without a superior.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: The noble Lord went farther——
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I did not.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: He expressed regret that Mr. Boehm was a foreigner.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I expressed no such regret of any sort or kind.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, the Committee never showed to less advantage than when it resolved itself into a Committee of Art critics; and, for his own part, he considered there were many methods in connection with the Estimates by which the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) could better employ himself than in giving an opinion as to the curve of beauty and the proportions of the human form. His noble Friend (Lord Randolph Churchill) had been good enough to point him out as a Representative of "the modern aesthetic school." Well, it was difficult to make out what school his noble Friend belonged to, seeing that the only authority he had quoted was the author of John Bull and his Island. He did not think the question of this statue should be decided at all on aesthetic grounds. The right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had told them that the whole body of Royal Academicians had come forward and asked him to take this opportunity of removing the statue. Well, the Royal Academicians might be admirable authorities on matters of Art—although that did not appear in a recent celebrated case to be the opinion of a British jury—but this was not primarily a question of Art. It was rather one of historical association; and it was for that reason that he considered the House of Commons perfectly competent to give an opinion upon it. The right hon. Gentleman had already spoiled the whole architectural merit of Hyde Park Corner by taking down the archway that, after all, however inconvenient to the traffic, was symmetrically arranged with the gate of Hyde Park, and by erecting it half-way down the hill and askew. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman had made the site much

    225
    more convenient for passenger traffic; but he had entirely spoilt the artistic merit of the place. The question, whether or not the Arch would look better with the Duke of Wellington on the top of it, was not worth discussing. It was because the House reflected the feeling of the English people on a question of historical interest that he considered it competent to give an opinion on this subject. He earnestly hoped the Committee would decline to give the £2,000 to the Government.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, that before they went to a Division on the matter, it should be pointed out by some person not a Member of the Government that there appeared to be a partnership arrangement with the Executive Committee to which reference had been made; and that being the case, the Committee should insist that it should only be done for solid and real reasons. He knew of no class of men in the Empire who had shown less appreciation of their public duties than the great landowners of London, who had received millions in increased ground rents whilst they were exempt from local charges; and he did very much hope that if the Committee should consent to this Vote it should be on the understanding that the illustrious and other Members of this Executive Committee had a great claim on these landowners to raise a larger sum than was contributed by Parliament for the improvement of Hyde Park Corner. The landowners of London had been excessively backward in contributing towards the cost of improvements in this great and important Metropolis. He hoped, however, that now they would rise to the occasion, and avail themselves of this opportunity of acknowledging a duty which had been very much neglected in the past. He hoped that a sum which would be adequate for the carrying out of the desired improvement would be forthcoming from those who had been hitherto backward in their duty in this respect.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he had received a Memorandum from the Duke of Rutland of an entry made by his Father, on the 6th of May, 1839, and it was as follows:—
    "The intention is to represent His Grace as he appeared on the evening of the 18th of June, 1815, towards the close of the battle of Waterloo, and His Grace has been so obliging as to sit to the artist in the costume he then wore,"
    226
    That was a consideration which should have great weight with the Committee. He confessed that, so far as he was concerned, he was not actuated in the view he took in supporting the Motion for the reduction of the Vote by sentimental considerations. If he were, he might point to the circumstances that the old statue had been placed so that it might be supposed that the Duke was pointing with his truncheon to the Horse Guards; and that the new statue, if replaced on the Arch, would be pointing to the Euston Square Railway Station, or to the swamps of Pimlico. Her Majesty's Government were, he considered, in this as in other matters, open to the charge of vacillation and inconsistency. As to the Executive Committee alluded to, it would be difficult to fix responsibility upon them, or to declare who of their Body was responsible. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had said he was responsible; whereas the Representive of the Government in the House of Lords, in his hearing, had thrown the responsibility on the Executive Committee. The Government threw the responsibility on the Executive Committee, and the Executive Committee returned the compliment by throwing it upon the Government. It was rather a curious fact that of the Members of the House who were also Members of the Executive Committee appointed last year, not one was now in his place. The noble Lord the Member for North Liecestershire (Lord John Manners) was not present, neither was the Chairman of the Board of Works (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg). The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Sir Thomas Brassey) was also conspicuous by his absence; so that it did not seem that the Members of the Executive Committee had any very great confidence in their own opinion. Then, as regarded the original plan of competition for the construction of the new statue, it had been entirely thrown overboard. The right hon. Gentleman had declared that if the selection were decided by competition all the best artists would be excluded; but the right hon. Gentleman seemed to forget that, in times gone by, the system of competition had made known the existence of some of the best artists this country had produced. The First Commissioner of Works, in an article lately written by him in The Nineteenth Century, had referred to Mr. Stevens' monument

    227
    of the Duke of Wellington in St. Paul's Cathedral as the greatest work executed in England since the time of Torrigiano, and the right hon. Gentleman might recollect that it was only through public competition that the merits of Mr. Stevens and of his design were realized. Mr. Stevens had had to contend with many difficulties, and he (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) had taken no small part in supporting Mr. Stevens, when Mr. Ayrton and not a few Members opposite had endeavoured to get rid of the monument altogether. Their efforts, however, failed, and at length the monument had been completed. He entirely concurred in what an hon. Friend of his had said about Mr. Boehm, believing that it would be a misfortune if the work were given to that gentleman instead of to an English artist of equal talent, who would not be difficult to find. He could not agree that Mr. Boehm had made any success with the statues he had erected in London. In addition to the failures already quoted, he would add that of the statue of Lord Russell in the Central Hall of the Parliament Building. The Prime Minister had known the noble Lord very well; and he (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) would put it to the right hon. Gentleman whether he had ever seen him in the attitude in which he appeared in the statue? No doubt, great care should be exercised in the selection of artists for these statues. It was said that Mr. Boehm was unrivalled in his execution of horses; but he should like to know where the sculptured horses were in this country from which hon. Members could judge of Mr. Boehm's unrivalled ability? His (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck's) general objection to the new proposal was that, by reason of the removal of the Triumphal Arch to its present position, where it stood sideways, and leading from St. George's Hospital to no where at all, it had become an incongruous absurdity, and no sum of money, however large, could invest the locality with any artistic beauty, unless they began de novo and took down the Arch, to erect it elsewhere.
    MR. ALBEET GREYregretted that the statue of the Duke of Wellington had not been removed long ago; and he, therefore, did not think the Committee ought to quarrel with the decision the Government had arrived at with
    228
    regard to it. With regard to the Memorial of the Royal Academicians, to which his right hon. Friend (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had referred as a justification for the course pursued by the Government, he thought that if the Government considered it their duty to take the advice of that Body in one respect, they should take it in another respect. The members of the Royal Academy last year sent a Memorial to the Prime Minister, asking the Government to appoint a Committee of experts to inquire whether it would not be possible to finish the monument of the Duke of Wellington in St. Paul's Cathedral? That Memorial had been supplemented by a Memorial from artists and literary men, and by a Memorial signed by 100 Members of the House of Commons. He, therefore, hoped that, as the Government had allowed themselves to be guided in their course of action in one respect by the Memorial of the Royal Academicians, they would also allow themselves to be guided by their Memorial and the other Memorials he had mentioned in regard to the completion of what was admitted by everybody to be the finest monument which had been produced in this country for many years. He would willingly have voted against this grant of £2,000, if, by so doing, he could have secured that that sum could have been expended in finishing the unfinished monument in St. Paul's Cathedral; but he was afraid, after the discussion which had taken place, that to vote with the hon. Member for Burnley would mean an expression of opinion that the Hyde Park Statue should remain where it was. He should, therefore, vote against the hon. Member.
    SIR EDWAED J. REEDshould have preferred to see the statue remain in its present vicinity; but because he considered the improvements which had been effected at Hyde Park Corner of such great public benefit, and the First Commissioner of Works so zealously devoted to the public interest, he should certainly give the right hon. Gentleman his support in the Division about to be taken.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 51; Noes 54: Majority 3.—(Div. List, No. 65.)
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEsaid, he desired to ask a Question of the First Commissioner of Works with respect to Richmond Park.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, that before the hon. Member raised that point he wished to make an appeal to the Prime Minister, and to ask him whether, after the debate which had taken place and the extremely close Division they had had, he would allow the matter to stand over for further consideration, and would not bring it forward at an hour when the House could not have a fair opportunity of discussing it?
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he conceived that the vote which had just been taken was a conclusive vote as regarded its immediate effect. ["No!"] As he understood the question of the noble Lord, the Government were asked to give a fair opportunity for the further consideration of the matter when the Vote was reported. He did not deny that that was a fair request.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKasked if the right hon. Gentleman would undertake that the Vote should be taken at such a time as would afford the House a fair opportunity of giving its attention to it, and not at 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning?
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that, of course, his answer implied that the Report of this particular Vote would not be taken at a time when it could not be discussed.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFexpressed a hope that no steps would be taken in regard to the statue or anything else, until after the Report was disposed of.
    MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEwished to ask a question of the First Commissioner of Works with respect to Richmond Park. For many years there had been a question raised with regard to the opening of Roehampton Gate to the public, and he wished to know if anything recently had occurred in regard to it? Richmond Park was one of the free open spaces in the neighbourhood of the Metropolis, and it was highly desirable that the inhabitants of London should have free access to it, and Roehampton Gate was the nearest approach to it. He believed that the property leading to that Gate was owned by a lady; and although the Park itself was
    230
    open the approach to it in that direction was not. He believed that some negotiations had been going on with the lady who owned the land, with a view of securing free admission to the Park by way of this Gate. At present the House voted money for keeping up the Roehampton Gate; but it was found that two authorities were jointly interested in opening up the approach, and that neither of them—neither the Ranger nor the lady who owned this property—had any right of entrance or exit from the Park whatever except by permission of the other. The public had no means whatever of proceeding to the Park by Roehampton Gate except through the land belonging to this lady, and the lady herself had no right or control over the Park itself. All that was wanted was an arrangement by which the public could obtain access to the Park by means of Roehampton Gate. He understood that the land belonging to this lady could be bought for a reasonable sum; but it could only be bought by means of an arrangement made through the First Commissioner of Works. He believed if any additional sum were asked for the land beyond the actual value which the Commissioners of Woods and Forests placed upon it the Metropolis would be prepared to pay it; but they were unable to take any steps in the matter except by means of an arrangement with the First Commissioner of Works. As a matter of public convenience, it was highly desirable that this access should be rendered free. At present the public, instead of driving directly into the Park by way of Roehampton Gate, were obliged to go round for a distance of two miles beyond Roehampton Gate. It would really be of great advantage to the Metropolis to have this gate thrown open, so that the inhabitants of London might be able, for purposes of recreation and enjoyment, to make free use of Richmond Park. He believed that cabs were admitted into the Park itself; but that they were unable to obtain admittance to it by means of Roehampton Gate. In the East End of London, Epping Forest had been preserved by the action of the Corporation; and he thought that something should be done in regard to Richmond Park, so as to give the public at the West End of London the freest and easiest access to it. It would, how-

    231
    ever, be impossible to do this until Roehampton Gate was made available.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is entitled to ask a question upon this point, but he is not entitled to debate it, because it has reference to another part of the Vote already disposed of.
    MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEsaid, he would confine himself to asking a question of the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works—namely, whether he did not consider that it would be of the greatest advantage to the inhabitants of the Metropolis that Roehampton Gate should be opened to the public, that being the nearest means of access to the Park? If it were opened up it would be of great advantage to large masses of the people who wished to visit the Park. ["Order!"]
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORrose to a point of Order. He wished to know if it was not competent for the hon. Member to move the reduction of the Vote in order to place himself in Order?
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member can move the reduction of the entire Vote; but by the Rules of the House he would not be entitled to enter into a debate upon this particular item at this moment.
    MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEasked whether, if he moved the reduction of the Vote, he would not be in Order in discussing this matter?
    THE CHAIRMAN: No.
    MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEsaid that, under those circumstances, he would confine himself to the question whether any negotiations had recently taken place with the view of securing the opening of Roehampton Gate to the public; and, if not, whether the right hon. Gentleman would not consider it necessary to make inquiry whether some arrangement might be effected by the payment of a small sum of money for the purchase of the land from the lady who now owned it, such payment to be recouped by an arrangement with the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, the object being to secure for the inhabitants of the Metropolis this easiest way of access to Richmond Park?
    MR. LABOUCHEREwished to ask his right hon. Friend the Chief Commissioner of Works, whether it was not possible to put an end to the preserva-
    232
    tion of game in Richmond Park, so that the public might not be kept out of the enjoyment of one-third of a Park for which they paid largely, in order that a very few individuals might amuse themselves by wandering about and shooting rabbits? ["Oh!"] He was simply asking a question whether this fact was not known to the right hon. Gentleman; and whether, if it was known to him, he would not take some means to see that the public, who paid largely towards the expense of keeping this Park in order, should not be deprived of the enjoyment of a considerable portion of it, in order that two or three individuals might have an opportunity of amusing themselves?
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREdesired to say, in answer to the first question which had been put to him, that he thought it would be of great advantage to the public if Roehampton Gate were opened. The difficulty was that the approach to that Gate was private property. It belonged to a lady who was willing to sell it under certain conditions; but he could not hold out any hope to 'the hon. Member for London (Mr. Alderman Lawrence) that the Treasury would advance the sum of money that would be necessary to pay for its purchase. Neither did he see any indication that the Metropolitan Board of Works, or any private persons, were ready to come forward and to advance the money. Whenever they did so he should be glad to enter into negotiations with this lady for the purchase of the property in question. At the same time, he could not hold out any hope that any Vote of money would be submitted to the House for the purpose; and he did not think that it was a matter which ought to fall upon the Public Exchequer. With regard to the question of his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), he could only say that the Park had been vested in the First Commissioner of Works for the purpose of a Park, and for the benefit of the public; but there was a distinct reservation of all the rights of the Crown, and among those rights was the right of sporting, which right Her Majesty had made over to the Duke of Cambridge, and the Government had no power of diminishing that right in any way.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, that complaints had been made of the

    233
    closing of the footway across St. James's Park at an early hour in the evening, He wished to know if any change had been made in that respect?
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREbelieved that the footway across the bridge was to be kept open all night.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman promised to consider the propriety of keeping open the broad path across Kensington Gardens until a later hour than at present. It was now closed at a very early hour, and considerable inconvenience was occasioned in consequence. The right hon. Gentleman had promised to keep it open later, and he (Mr. Ritchie) wished to know if steps had been taken to give effect to that promise?
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREreplied in the affirmative.
    MR. RAIKESwished to say a word in regard to Roehampton Gate. Did the right hon. Gentleman think it worth while to spend £2,000 a-year for the maintenance of the Park, and refuse to give the small sum that would be necessary in order to render it accessible to the people of London? He understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he was not disposed to recommend a Vote, or any outlay of money, for the purpose of securing that access, which would be most convenient.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that no doubt the opening of Roehampton Gate would be convenient for the people of the neighbourhood who lived within easy reach of Richmond Park; but it certainly appeared to him that the expense of obtaining the opening up of this access to the Park ought to fall upon the inhabitants who would be benefited by it, and not upon the public generally.
    MR. TOMLINSONwished to ask a question about the Green Park, which had been raised last year. There had been a Vote for new railings at the Hyde Park Corner of the Green Park. The new railings were much more pretentious than the old ones; and he wished to know whether it was intended to continue the new form of railing, or whether it was intended to leave the railing in its present unsightly condition?
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he had not included in the Estimates any sum for such a purpose this year; but, of course, it might be a question for consideration in the future.
    MR. MOLLOYasked if the First Commissioner of Works would state now how many acres of the enclosed land had been opened to the public in Regent's Park, and whether the total quantity which it had been decided to give up to the public would, when opened, be free of access to everybody? He believed that three or four weeks ago a portion of the land given to the public had been again enclosed.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he thought the area thrown open to the public in Regent's Park was about 20 acres. The whole of it was opened on the 1st of March of the present year.
    MR. MOLLOY: The whole of it?
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Yes; the whole of it.
    MR. LABOUCHEREbegged to move the reduction of the Vote by £7,161 in reference to Victoria Park. He would also move the reduction of the Vote by the items asked for in reference to Battersea Park, and Kennington Park.
    MR. RITCHIEasked if the hon. Gentleman was in Order in moving to reduce a Vote which had already been passed, in as much as it was antecedent to the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands)?
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR, upon that point of Order, and in reference to a previous ruling of the Chair, wished to point out that the reduction moved by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) was for £2,000 in connection with Hyde Park Corner which appeared in Sub-head E; but later on in the Vote, in Sub-heads G. H. and T., there were the sums mentioned by the hon. Member?
    THE CHAIRMAN: There is no doubt that the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) would be in Order in moving the reduction of the Vote by any sum short of the aggregate amount; but in moving the reduction of the Vote by a specific item which appears in the Vote later than the items included in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) he would not be in Order.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that these points of Order were of great importance. If a ruling of this nature were given somewhat hastily, it might be found that the discussion of the Votes in Committee would be practically futile,

    235
    The reduction moved by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), in reference to the sum of £2,000 which came under Sub-head E, related to certain works in Hyde Park; but in Subhead F there was a further sum for the maintenance of that Park, and, in point of fact, the question of maintenance in connection with the different Parks ran all through the Vote; and therefore he thought, with all due respect to the ruling of the Chair, that it was competent for any hon. Member to move any reduction covered by the different subheads which came after Sub-head E.
    THE CHAIRMAN: As to giving the ruling hasily, it was given in accordance with the ancient Rules of the House. The hon. Member has specified certain items relating to public Parks which are antecedent to the Vote taken upon the reduction moved by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands). It would, therefore, be out of Order to move that reduction.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, his remarks related to Battersea Park.
    THE CHAIRMAN: It would be out of Order to propose a reduction of the Vote upon an item included in it for Battersea Park.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that, under those circumstances, he would move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £7,161 for the expenditure in connection with Victoria Park. This was one of the Parks of London which was kept up at the expense of the whole country. As by the ruling of the Chair the amount voted for other Parks might not be touched, there was a still stronger reason than there had been before why they should not vote the sum now asked for for this Park. He wished to point out that this was a sum of money thrown upon the country for the expense of Parks in London, exclusive of Hyde Park, St. James's Park, and the Green Park, which might be regarded as National Parks. He believed the country had already spent upon Battersea Park, in the formation of the Park and the River Embankment, something like £21,000, and there would also be an item, he imagined, for a new bridge, to give access to the enclosed land recently opened to the public in Regent's Park. Now, the Metropolis was a very wealthy place, and ought to pay for its own Parks. No doubt, he would be told by
    236
    the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works that these Parks belonged to the country, and ought to be paid for by the country rather than by the Metropolis, because they were in a different position from any of the country Parks. In the country the inhabitants formed their own Parks, and supplied the money necessary to maintain them; and why should not the Londoners, who were better able to afford the outlay, do the same? The constituency he represented (Northampton) had decided upon having a Park; but no proposal was made that the public should pay for it. If such a proposal were made, he was satisfied that not a voice would be raised in that House in favour of it. He ventured to ask, then, why the country should be called upon to pay for the Parks in London?
    MR. COURTNEY: They are all in the London Government Bill.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he was not quite certain that that Bill would pass this Session. He thought it was likely to meet with such an amount of obstruction that its passing was very questionable. The present bird in the hand was worth very many London Bills in the bush; and he objected to any proposal for making a present of £7,000 to the City of London, on the chance that they might be able to pass the Municipal Bill this year. It would be far better to approach the consideration of that Bill with a solemn declaration on the part of the House that, whether the Bill passed or not, London should be called upon to pay for its own Parks.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the Item of £7,161 for the Victoria Park be omitted from the proposed Vote."— (Mr. Labouchere.)
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he ventured to hope that the hon. Member would not consider it necessary to divide the Committee upon his Amendment. The question was dealt with in the London Government Bill, and it was proposed to hand over this Park to the New Government of London. It would be practically impossible to give up these Parks on the part of the Government without an Act of Parliament, and even an Act of Parliament would be necessary to enable them to be handed over to the New Government of London. He could hardly suppose that

    237
    the hon. Member wished to see these Parks thrown into a state of neglect and disorder. All the three Parks which had been mentioned would be provided for in the London Government Bill.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he thought that the Metropolitan Board of Works ought to take over these Parks by Act of Parliament in the same way as Leicester Square.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the London Government Bill would enable them to be handed over to the New Local Government of London. There was already a Bill for that purpose on the Table of the House, and the passing of that Bill in the present year was only a question of time. Under these circumstances, it would simply be a waste of time to discuss the matter.
    MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEsaid, he was glad that a question had been put by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) which had elicited from the right hon. Gentleman that one of the penalties which London would have to pay for the London Government Bill was £26,000 a-year for the keeping up of these Parks. That, he believed, was not the only penalty which the City of London would have to pay if that Bill passed. He therefore thought they were indebted to the hon. Gentleman for having brought the question forward at this time. Probably he might bring forward further questions which would tend to show the amount of benefit the Metropolis would receive from that Bill, and would show, in point of fact, a debtor as well as a creditor account. He thought the people of London would be surprised to hear that £26,000 a-year would be the first thing they would be called upon to pay, in accordance with the views Her Majesty's Government had just expressed upon the subject. He was quite sure that the inhabitants of London would protest against being burdened with the responsibility of keeping up Parks which were not for the benefit of themselves only, but for the advantage of other persons who frequented them. It was, as he had stated, one of the penalties which London would have to pay, and the neighbourhoods in which the Parks were situated would have no reason to be grateful for the Bill.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, he understood that the Parks which were now enjoyed
    238
    by the poorer classes of the community were to be taken out of the Estimates; while Hyde Park, St. James's Park, and the Green Park, which were enjoyed by the richer part of the community, would be kept in. He could not conceive anything more invidious than a proposal of that kind; and he was satisfied that many people in the East End of London would look with a considerable amount of dissatisfaction on any proposal to take the Parks out of the Imperial taxation for the purpose of throwing them upon the ratepayers of London. Whatever might be proposed by the London Government Bill would be dealt with when that Bill came on properly for discussion. He understood it was proposed that Victoria Park and other Parks were to be kept up by the Metropolis; while Hyde Park, St. James's Park, and the Green Park were to be maintained out of the Imperial Exchequer. [Mr. COURTNEY: They are Royal Parks.] He did not understand the distinction, and he thought it would be regarded as an invidious one. As far as the East End of London was concerned, the people would look with a considerable amount of dissatisfaction and jealousy on the enormous amounts of money that were expended in the West End of London, in the neighbourhood of Kensington, while the East End found no similar favour. Even when they asked for such a paltry expenditure as was involved in the present Vote, they were told that in future it would have to be borne by the people of London themselves. If this course was to be followed, of throwing upon the ratepayers of London the cost of maintaining the Parks of the poor, while those of the rich were kept up by the Imperial Exchequer, it would be regarded with extreme jealousy and dissatisfaction.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Original Question again proposed.
    SIR HERBERT MAXWELLsaid, he had put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works, which had not been answered, in reference to an item of £100 per annum to experts for naming cryptogams.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he was sorry he could not give the explanation which the hon. Member asked for.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he thought the time had now arrived when Progress ought to be reported. He would, therefore, make a Motion to that effect.
    Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. T. P. 0' Connor.)
    SIR ROBERT PEELasked when the right hon. Gentleman proposed to take the Report?
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: On Thursday.
    SIR ROBERT PEEL: Not to-morrow?
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: No.
    Motion agreed to.
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock.
    Committee to sit again upon Wednesday.

  BOARD OF WORKS (IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL.
  (Mr. Courtney, Mr. Trevelyan.)
  BOARD OF WORKS (IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL.

    [BILL 165.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. COURTNEYexpressed a hope that the House would consent to the second reading of the Bill, the object of which was to consolidate and simplify certain Acts of Parliament relating to the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland. The provisions of the Bill contained no novelties, and were not likely to raise any discussion of a controversial character. There was nothing involved in the Bill which ought to give rise to any discussion at all; and he proposed, after the Bill was read a second time, to move that it be referred to a Select Committee, such Committee to be composed in a manner which would be satisfactory to the Irish Members. Of course, due Notice would be given of the appointment of the Committee. He begged to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Courtney.)
    COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, the Bill contained very long and multifarious provisions, and it had only been placed in the hands of hon. Members that morning. The House ought, at any rate, to be allowed 24 hours for considering
    240
    it. He would, therefore, ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, to postpone the Bill until another day.
    MR. MOLLOYwould join with the hon. and gallant Member for the County of Dublin (Colonel King-Harman) in asking the Government to postpone the further consideration of the Bill. The Irish Members knew nothing about it; and although the hon. Gentleman said he proposed to refer it to a Select Committee, to be composed in such a manner as would be satisfactory to the Irish Members, the hon. Member's idea of composing a Committee to the satisfaction of Irish Members was one thing, whereas the actual composition of the Committee might be another. Her Majesty's Government and the Irish Members did not always agree upon that point; and he thought at that hour of the night it would be rather hard to ask the Irish Members to consent to the second reading of a Bill of which they knew absolutely nothing.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he would move the adjournment of the debate, on the ground that the Bill, which contained 67 clauses and 33 pages of print, had been laid upon the Table so recently that hon. Members had had no opportunity of making themselves acquainted with the nature of its provisions. It was perfectly impossible for hon. Members to know anything about it, and especially to know whether it was proposed to make any alteration in the composition of the Board of Works. The Board of Works, as at present constituted, was a most unsatisfactory Body. He thought the best way would be to withdraw the Bill, and introduce one which would afford a guarantee for the substantial amendment of the Board of Works. A measure which simply reaffirmed the constitution of a Board which was at present considered most objectionable would only involve a waste of the public time. It was absurd to introduce a Bill which allowed the existing law to remain practically without amendment. He begged to move that the debate be now adjourned.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned." —(Mr. Biggar.)
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, it was with great reluctance that he assented to the proposal of the hon. Member. He was

    241
    very sorry that the second reading of the Bill had not been agreed to. The Bill was a Bill of mere machinery, simply relating to the means by which the Board of Works acted, and had nothing whatever to do with the law under which the Board acted. If it were not read a second time now, it was impossible to say when it could he taken again. At the same time, he felt that he was unable to resist the appeal which had been made.
    COLONEL NOLANwished to point out the extraordinary manner in which the Irish Business was managed in that House. The Irish Members were not like Members who represented English constituencies, who got to know something of Bills before they were put down upon the Paper. The Irish Members were not in the confidence of Her Majesty's Government, and they were not afforded an opportunity of making themselves acquainted with the provisions of a measure of this kind in advance. The present Bill was only issued that morning; it was a very long Bill; and it had now been proposed that night to read it a second time without any speech in explanation of its provisions. What the House ought to have had was a short speech from the Secretary to the Treasury, explaining the provisions of the Bill. His own impression was that the hon. Gentleman was unable to do that in consequence of not having read the Bill himself. As to the assertion that the Bill was simply one of machinery, he disputed it altogether. The Bill was a very important one, and in its present shape it was likely to create dissatisfaction in Ireland. What the Irish people wanted was a measure to remodel altogether the machinery by which the Board of Works was at present worked. He hoped this slip-shod method of dealing with legislation for Ireland would not be continued in future.
    COLONEL COLTHURSTsaid, it was only fair to the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury to say that this Bill was in every word the same as a Bill brought forward on the same subject last year. He was able to make that statement, as he had been personally concerned in the matter. About three weeks ago he had had a Motion on the subject asking that the whole matter should be referred to a Select Committee, and he still believed that
    242
    that would be the best plan of dealing with it. His hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury asked him to forego that Motion, and promised that a Bill should be introduced at once and referred to a Select Committee. As the hon. Gentleman had stated, the Bill did not contain any controversial matter. The next Bill on the Paper, which related to land improvement and arterial drainage in Ireland, was a much more important measure. With regard to the present Bill, nothing satisfactory could be arrived at simply by a discussion in that House. It must go through the ordeal of a Select Committee; and there was an understanding that when a Select Committee was appointed there should be power to call witnesses, and the hon. Members for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), for Galway (Colonel Nolan), for Dublin County (Colonel King-Harman), or for King's County (Mr. Molloy) would be able to bring forward any evidence they thought fit. To adjourn the debate now would only be to prejudice the chance of another investigation taking place in the course of the present Session. His hon. Friend must know that at this moment the subject of arterial drainage was absolutely at a standstill in Ireland; and it would be at a standstill until something was done in regard to these Bills. He hoped the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) would allow the Bill to be read a second time.
    COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, that if his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the County of Cork (Colonel Colthurst) had been able to read the Bill and make himself master of its provisions, he had been much quicker than he (Colonel King-Harman) had been. He presumed that the hon. and gallant Gentleman received the Bill only that morning, at the same time as he (Colonel King-Harman) and other hon. Members; but it would seem from the knowledge the hon. and gallant Member possessed of its provisions that he must have had the Bill placed in his hands some days before Parliament adjourned for the holidays. As other hon. Members had not enjoyed a similar privilege, they were anxious that the debate should be adjourned.
    Motion agreed to.
    Debate adjourned till Thursday.

INTESTATES ESTATES BILL [Lords].
(Mr. Courtney.)
INTESTATES ESTATES BILL [Lords].

  [BILL 168.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. COURTNEY, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, the measure was one of great simplicity. Its primary object was to amend the law respecting the administration of the personal estate, and the escheat of the real estate, of deceased persons. It was considered desirable to afford to the Crown some protection against claims made against it with regard to the property of persons who died intestate. The Bill provided that where the administration of the personal estate of a deceased person was granted by a nominee of Her Majesty, any action or other proceedings against such nominee for the recovery of the personal estate should be of the same character and subjected to the same rules of law and equity, including the Statute of Limitations, in all respects as if the administration had been granted to the nominee as one of the next of kin. By this provision the Statute of Limitations would be held to apply in favour of the Crown Solicitor where the Crown Solicitor wished the administration of the estate by reason of the intestacy of a deceased person. It further provided that where a person died without an heir and intestate in respect of real estate, the Law of Escheat should apply in the same manner as if the estate were a legal estate in land held directly from Her Majesty. The object was to prevent claims being raised up that were of a fictitious character, or attempts to recover from the Crown, notwithstanding the Statute of Limitations. If any objection was likely to be raised against the Bill it would be an objection of detail rather than anything else, and would be best considered in Committee. Power would be given to the Court to sell the interest of the Crown in any real estate, and there would also be power to waive the right of the Crown in certain cases. He did not think any difference of opinion as to the principle of the Bill existed, and any Amendments which hon. Members placed upon the Paper would be fully considered in Committee. Under the circumstances, he trusted the House would allow the second reading to be taken.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Courtney.)
  MR. SALTsaid, he had no wish to interfere with the progress of the Bill. He had, however, a strong objection to the second reading of the Bill on that occasion, inasmuch as it contained much technicality of detail, and had, moreover, only been delivered that morning. It had become too much the practice to slip Bills of this character through the House at a late hour, when it was absolutely impossible for them to receive that full consideration which their importance demanded. It might be said that the Bill had the advantage of coming from "another place;" but even with that undoubted advantage he did not think it a convenient course that it should be put into the hands of hon. Members in the morning, and be taken for second reading on the evening of the same day.
  MAJOR GENERAL ALEXANDERsaid, he had expected the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Salt) would move the adjournment of the debate; but as he had not done so, he rose for the purpose of moving the adjournment, on the ground that the Bill had only been delivered that morning, and that it was impossible to discuss it properly at that hour (1.15). The Bill contained clauses of a technical character, which hon. Members had not had time to consider. He thought it should be established as a principle in that House that no Bill delivered in the morning should be proposed for second reading on the same day.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Major General Alexander.)
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, he should certainly like further time for considering the Bill. There was a case in his own county (Galway) involving the sum of £150,000, the claimants of which would be debarred by the Bill, if it became law, from establishing their claim. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury was probably acquainted with the case to which he referred. Although, of course, it seemed very absurd that all the members of the family in question should think they would get the money, there was no doubt in his mind that one of them was entitled to it. The Bill would clearly place them in a bad posi-

  245
  tion; and he, for one, felt it his duty to vote for the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Ayrshire (Major General Alexander).
  MR. HORACE DAVEYsaid, the Bill, no doubt, at first sight appeared of some technicality; but further examination would, he thought, show that, although of considerable importance, the clauses were not so technical as they appeared. His hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury had pointed out the substance of the Bill, which might be described under three heads.
  MR. SPEAKER: I would point out that the hon. and learned Member should confine himself strictly to reasons against the adjournment, or otherwise, of the debate.
  MR. HORACE DAVEYsaid, his reason against the adjournment of the debate was that the principle of the Bill was a matter of great difficulty; and that, although a measure of importance, it would receive in Committee the large amount of attention which it demanded. He thought the House might very well agree to the Motion for the second reading; and he ventured to suggest to his hon. Friend in charge of the Bill, that he should agree not to put it down for the Committee stage until a week had elapsed, in order that if any hon. Member, on looking further into it, should think it required further discussion, such discussion might be taken on the Motion for going into Committee.
  MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, he hoped there would be no attempt to force the Bill through the House at that Sitting. There were upon the Paper 35 Orders of the Day, and it was simply impossible that hon. Members could have read the Bill in the short time during which it had been in their hands. He, for one, although of course it was the duty of Members to do so, had not had an opportunity of reading it. He protested against the unbusiness-like way suggested of reading the Bill a second time, and leaving its principle open for discussion on the Motion for going into Committee; and he trusted the House would agree to the adjournment of the debate.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, if this were a Bill merely dealing with a few technicalities, which could be discussed in Committee, he should be disposed to vote against the Motion for the
  246
  adjournment of the debate. But it was a Bill which extended the principle of the Law of Escheat, and that, too, in a very unfair way. The Secretary to the Treasury said that where a Trustee found himself discharged from his trust the Crown had no claim on the property; but he would point out that by this Bill the Crown would acquire an entirely new right. That certainly was an important question of principle, on which the sense of the House ought to be taken at a time whem full consideration could be given to the question.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELLsaid, he understood that the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury proposed to make certain alterations in the Bill when in Committee which would meet the objections which were felt with regard to it on that side of the House. The principal objection felt in the House and throughout the country with reference to the proceedings of the Government in the matter of intestate estates was the want of publicity, the result of which would be that large sums of money—the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan) had instanced a case in which £150,000 were involved—would be dealt with in almost absolute secresy. It must, he thought, be in the mind of everyone that it was desirable that the utmost amount of publicity should be given in matters of this sort. If the hon. Gentleman were prepared to give the House an assurance that he would in Committee insert a clause directing that details should be given with complete fullness and clearness in the annual account published, he thought the chief objection of hon. Members would be met, and that they would be inclined to defer discussion until the Committee stage of the Bill. ["No, no!"]
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he hoped the House would agree to the Motion of his hon. and gallant Friend, because he liked to stick to the Rules of the House; and he thought that as the Bill had not yet been seen by anyone the House ought to have an opportunity of considering its provisions before it was proceeded with. The Bill had only been delivered that morning, and there had been no opportunity of considering the principles upon which it was based, and which were principles which the Secretary to the Treasury had

  247
  admitted might involve serious consequences to individuals. He, therefore, sincerely hoped the consideration of the Bill would be postponed; otherwise its second reading must be prevented.
  MR. WARTONmentioned that the Secretary to the Treasury had said he would not take the Bill if there was serious opposition to it.
  MR. ELTONsaid, it was obvious that this was not a little measure. It introduced a new principle with regard to equitable escheat, and interfered with the rights of private lords, and he must support the Motion for Adjournment.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, he was, of course, not going to resist this proposal; but he thought the only serious argument against going on with the Bill was that of the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Bartelott). On that ground he would assent to the adjournment; but he hoped advantage would not be taken of the adjournment to block the Bill, and prevent its being fairly discussed on the next occasion when it came on.
  Motion agreed to.
  Debate adjourned till Monday next.

PUBLIC HEALTH (CONFIRMATION OF BYE-LAWS) BILL.— [BILL 173.]
(Mr. George Russell, Sir Charles W. Dilke, Mr. Hibbert.)
PUBLIC HEALTH (CONFIRMATION OF BYE-LAWS) BILL.— [BILL 173.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second READING read.
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL, in moving that the Bill he now read a second time, said, he thought the House would be more considerate with respect to this Bill than with regard to the last, because when he introduced it he explained its object.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. George Russell.)
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday.

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES BILL [Lords].
(Mr. Attorney General.)
MATRIMONIAL CAUSES BILL [Lords].

  [BILL 175.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. George Russell.)
  MR. WARTONrose to a point of Order. The Motion before the House was that the Bill be now read a second time; but he had given Notice that on that Motion he should move that the Bill be adjourned till to-morrow. It was a question arising from peculiar circumstances.
  MR. SPEAKER: That will not be in Order. There is no Question before the House.
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELLsaid, he had moved the second reading.
  MR. WARTONsaid, his point of Order was this. At the moment before the adjournment of the House was moved, on the last Sitting before the Vacation, it was understood that the second reading of this Bill would be taken to-day. That was of some importance in regard to what took place last year. Without any such arrangement last year the Bill was put down for the first day after the Easter Vacation; and his point was that there had not been a single day on which Amendments could be put down in opposition to this Bill. By the courtesy of the House a Bill was always read a first time; but if such a Bill was put down for second reading on the first day after a Recess, there was no time for putting down Amendments. When he had a Motion on this subject on the 1st of April last, and the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) wanted to have a debate on the Reform Bill, he only asked that one day should be given upon which Amendments in opposition might be put down; and as, if this plan was not adopted, any Bill might be forced through a second reading, he should now move that the second reading be adjourned till to-morrow.
  MR. SPEAKER: It is only competent to the hon. and learned Member to move the adjournment of the debate.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Warton.)
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (SIR HENRY JAMES)said, this Bill was first brought before the House of Lords; but if there was any feeling that further opportunity for considering it should be given, he would not raise any objection, to that; but he would appeal to the hon. and learned Member for Bridport to consider its provisions, and not block

  249
  it simply because it was a Bill on the Paper.
  Motion agreed, to.
  Debate adjourned till To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

REAL ASSETS ADMINISTRATION BILL.
(Mr. Arthur O'Connor, Mr. Warton.)
REAL ASSETS ADMINISTRATION BILL.

  [BILL 98.] THIRD READING.
  Order for Third READING read.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR, in moving that the Bill be now read a third time, said, he wished to state, in reference to the opposition of the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson), that in deference to that hon. Member, and to the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley), he had postponed the third reading from the last Sitting of the House before the Recess until today, because they objected to taking the third reading without the Bill having been reprinted. He was anxious to meet their wishes in that respect, and also to consult the authorities of the House, from whom he learnt that it was unusual to have a small Bill like this reprinted after Amendments in Committee, and that it would be altogether unprecedented for him to move to have it reprinted. The Bill itself was a very small measure, and the alterations in it were quite consequential. There was nothing debateable in any of the new clauses; and he thought they generally met the opinions of the most authoritative Members on the subject. He believed they had the approval of the Solicitor General and other learned Members who were interested in the matter; and, under those circumstances, he appealed to the hon. Member for Preston not to oppose the third reading.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)
  MR. TOMLINSONsaid, of course it was competent to the hon. Member to press the third reading upon him, and he was not so familiar with the practice of the House as to say whether or not it was absolutely a matter of right to have the Bill read a third time; but when the hon. Member spoke of the unusual course of having the Bill reprinted, he must say it was unusual for such a Bill to appear for the third read-
  250
  ing with Amendments three or four times as long as it was on the second reading. But, under all the circumstances, he should not press the matter any further.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 27.]
(Mr. Kenny, Mr. Leamy, Mr. Dawson, Mr. Barry, Mr. Corbet.)
FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 27.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second READING read.
  COLONEL NOLAN, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, explained that it was only a short Bill, and simply enabled Trustees to transfer Coast Fisheries to the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Colonel Nolan.)
  COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he had hoped that the Chief Secretary would have expressed some opinion upon this Bill. He wished it had been as fair and as good a Bill as was brought in last year, which, however, had not got to a second reading. That Bill, in doing away with the present officers, who administered these Trusts, provided in some undefined way that they should receive some compensation for the abolition of their office; but this Bill provided no such compensation whatever. They would, therefore, be thrown out of employment without any compensation; and he should, therefore, move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Colonel King-Harman.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, he hoped the hon. and gallant Gentleman would withdraw his Amendment after he had stated the view of the Government. The Bill was similar in its essential lines to the Bill which he had himself introduced last year; it was a Bill in which he took considerable interest, and he was satisfied that the right course

  251
  had been taken. The Bill of last year fell through owing to the Government and the several Trustees being unable to come to an understanding, and he then stated that, so far as that Bill was concerned, it was impossible for him to proceed last Session; but he limited that declaration distinctly to last year, and this Bill was one which he should heartily support in principle. He could not, however, agree to the second reading on the part of the Government, unless the hon Member, who was standing godfather to the Bill, and who he hoped had the authority of the Gentlemen whose names appeared on the Bill, and was quite sure that he understood their feelings, would agree to put off any further stage of the Bill for a week, within which time he should be prepared to name the conditions of compensation upon which the Government would only consent to support the Bill. He could assure the hon. Member that those conditions would be such as would meet with his acceptance.
  COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, on those condition he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

IRISH LAND COURT OFFICERS (EXCLUSION FROM PARLIAMENT) BILL.
(Mr. Brodrick, Lord Arthur Hill, Mr. Macartney.)
IRISH LAND COURT OFFICERS (EXCLUSION FROM PARLIAMENT) BILL.

  [BILL 89.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Colonel King-Harmon.)
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, he was afraid he could not consent to the Motion at that time of night; and from what he knew of the Bill, if it was in the same shape as when originally introduced he could not assent to it at any time. He had the strongest objection to the Bill in the form in which he first saw it, because it inflicted retrospective penalties on gentlemen who accepted their positions at a time when this burdensome condition was not made; and on that ground he objected to the Bill on principle. If the hon. and gallant
  252
  Member pressed the Bill he should be prepared to give it a decided negative; but at present he should content himself with moving the adjournment of the debate.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,"That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Trevelyan.)
  Motion agreed to.
  Debate adjourned till Thursday.

MOTION.
  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY BILL.

    LEAVE. FIRST READING.
    Resolution reported on Wednesday the 2nd of April from the Committee on Royal Irish Constabulary (Additional Officers, Salaries, &c.) read.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, that in accordance with the announcement he made before the holidays, he now proposed to ask leave to bring in this Bill. Hon. Members who had watched the proceedings of the House might be surprised at the Government taking a step backwards in regard to this Bill; because, as a matter of fact, they had been already ordered by the House to produce the Bill. But that step had been taken under a misconception. He felt bound, in accordance with the promise he had made to hon. Members opposite, to move the Bill at a time when he could make a short statement with regard to it; and he had accordingly obtained an Order that the previous Order of the House should be cancelled, in order that he might have an opportunity of introducing the Bill as it now arose. The Bill was very short and very simple. It was very much shorter and simpler than the Bill of last year, which was now in the hands of Members. The history of the Bill was shortly this. The Irish Police Force, which now numbered some 12,000 men, had reached something like 14,000 men two years ago; and it was discovered that that Force could not be properly managed from centralized head-quarters. For this and other reasons, in the year 1882 the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), who was then Chief Secretary, appointed six gentlemen, to whom he gave the name of Special Resident Magistrates. Those

    253
    officials had districts assigned to them within which they had very great but somewhat undefined power over the police. The measure was in some respects—in many respects—in accordance with right principles of administration; but there were some great defects in the system. Those defects were inherent in the necessities of the moment, because the time was exceptional. A measure of great adminstrative importance had to be taken, and Parliament, in fact, had no leisure for the consideration of the details of this Bill. The principle was a right one; but there were some defects. In the first place there was some confusion between the several functions of the several magistrates. Some of them exercised judicial and administrative functions, and the administrative functions were of a nature which he thought ought to be specially divorced from the judicial functions, because they related to the detection of crime. Another defect was this—as a temporary measure it was all very well to allow gentleman in the position of Resident Magistrates to have control over the police; but, in the long run, it was an inconvenient plan, and somewhat perilous to a great Police Force, which had a regular hierarchy of officials, to place it under the command of gentlemen who did not belong to it, and who never had belonged to the Force. Another defect in the scheme, as a permament scheme, was that those officials were too numerous. There were six of them at a time when six were required; but six were too many in ordinary times for centralizing and carrying on the police in Ireland; and that was one of the principal matters which the Government now wished to effect. And the final objection to the scheme was that it was too expensive. Temporary expenses were always excessive; but these were specially so. The Resident Magistrates received in pay and in allowances something like £1,500 a-year each. The Government wished to take what was good and what they thought might be permanant in this system, and leave out what was temporary and likely, in the long run, to be inexpedient; and, consequently, they proposed to ask the House to allow the Lord Lieutenant to name five persons to be Divisional Commissioners of the Royal Irish Constabulary. These five officials
    254
    would exercise a decentralized power, and would have control of the police for the purposes of discipline and the detection of crime, and, in fact, for every purpose, just in the same way as a County Inspector had on a small scale, and as the Inspector General had for all purposes. These gentlemen would be police officers to all intents and purposes; and the Government, after considerable hesitation, had arrived at the conclusion to ask the House to insert a clause in the Bill stating that the persons appointed, from time to time, to fill vacancies should henceforth be taken from the officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary. The measure was one which would promote economy; for whereas each of the present Magistrates received £1,500 a-year, the new officials would receive £1,000 and their absolute travelling expenses, which would be the same as those of other officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary. The new officials would not have the private secretaries and clerks which were now attached to the Special Resident Magistrates. He thought it would not be too much to say that the system of Special Resident Magistrates, as compared with the system the Government proposed, was, at the very least, twice as expensive. Of course, there were gentlemen who would object to the system of decentralization in the police for the purposes of detection of crime; and to those gentlemen he would only say that the Government considered this quite a vital point, and that they had shown how vital they considered it by setting up the system of Special Resident Magistrates, which had opened up their action to great criticism. They had now greatly improved the system, administratively and economically; and in bringing forward this Bill they endorsed very strongly the doctrine that judicial functions in Ireland, as elsewhere, should be absolutely and entirely separated from administrative and police functions. The Special Resident Magistrates would be Justices of the Peace, not for the purpose of setting in Court, but simply for the purpose of dealing with riots, just as, he believed, the Inspector General and superior officers of police now were. One other provision was inserted in the Bill, and it was the only one on which he need say a single word. One of the Assistant Inspectors General, of whom

    255
    there were three, was at this moment the Divisional Magistrate, Mr. Reve; and if the Bill passed he would be continued as Divisional Commissioner, and his place as Assistant Inspector General would not be filled up; and if any Assistant Inspector General in the future was appointed an Assistant Divisional Commissioner, the Lord Lieutenant would have it in his power not to fill the post vacated. As a matter of fact, he had no doubt the Lord Lieutenant would endeavour not to fill up such vacancy. The Bill was so economical, as compared with the previous method of carrying out the principle, that the Government earnestly trusted the House would eventually adopt it. His only duty now was to ask hon. Gentlemen to allow the measure to be placed in their hands.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to improve the administration of the Royal Irish Constabulary in certain particulars."— (Mr. Trevelyan.)
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that, at that hour of the night (2.5 a.m.), and at that stage of the Bill, he did not intend to offer any prolonged opposition to the measure. Of course, he only spoke for himself; but, having made that observation, he thought he was entitled to remark that the right hon. Gentleman had hardly acted fairly towards the Irish Members. This was the day for slipping Business through the House, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for County Galway (Colonel Nolan) had said earlier on, because large numbers of Members, naturally enough, prolonged their vacation, and did not appear in their places on the first day after the holidays. He was sure Irish Members would have been in their places in much larger numbers if they had been aware that the right hon. Gentleman intended to put this Bill down for its first stage that night. The right hon. Gentleman must know that the measure was not one on which Irish Members could look with any favour. If there were one class of Government officials who, during the past three or four years in Ireland, had left more odious recollections behind them than another, it was the class of individuals who were to be made permanent by this Bill. There was not a place in Ireland where these Special Resident Magistrates had been ap-
    256
    pointed where the people did not remember them with the strongest feelings of animosity. He had been glad to hear some admissions the right hon. Gentleman had made in the course of his speech. In the first place, the right hon. Gentleman was convinced that the system of Special Resident Magistrates was one of the most expensive luxuries the Government permitted themselves to indulge in, even in Ireland; and, in the next place, it was laid down as a principle that the Government were anxious to separate judicial from administrative and police functions. That was a most excellent principle; and he would invite the right hon. Gentleman to consider the desirability of extending the system still higher, and requiring the Irish Judges to abandon the career and position of active and pugnacious politicians, which, in other countries, they were supposed to have left behind when they stepped from the Bar to the Bench. In a previous Session the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues had laid great stress on the fact that judicial and police functions were to be separated; and that, in future, cases would be tried, not by magistrates who were concerned in bringing charges against prisoners, but by magistrates who had nothing to do with the previous stages of cases. Some had thought that what the right hon. Gentleman promised was to be a reality, and not a sham. The right hon. Gentleman had set up a number of Stipendiary Magistrates, who were the tools or instruments of the Government, employed mainly for the purpose of convicting prisoners, whether or not there were a fair case against them. He hoped the promise of the right hon. Gentleman had given on the present occasion would not be of the same character. At that period of the night he did not intend to offer any further observations. At a later stage of the Bill he would take the opportunity, with some of his hon. Friends, of offering other and stronger objection to it.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill ordered, to be brought in by Mr. TREVELYAN and Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for IRELAND. [Bill 176.]
    House adjourned at a quarter after Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
Sat first in Parliament—The Earl of Abingdon, after the death of his father.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Army (Annual)* (59); Married Women's Property Act (1882) Amendment * (60); Oyster and Mussel Fisheries Provisional Order* (61).
Report—Freshwater Fisheries Act Amendment * (43).

METROPOLITAN RAILWAY (PARK RAILWAY AND PARLIAMENT STREET IMPROVEMENT) BILL.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF BELMOREsaid, that he rose to ask a Question of his noble Friend opposite, of which, he had given Notice, and which Notice was in these terms—
  "To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the difficulty, if not impossibility, of properly ventilating underground railways without openings into the outer air, as proved by the evidence given on behalf of the Metropolitan and Metropolitan District (Inner Circle) Railway Companies when their Bills were in Committee in 1879 and 1881, the Government will consider the propriety of making the assent
  120
  of Parliament to the proposed new railway under the public parks contingent on the company undertaking to work the line by electric power and not by steam?"
  Before putting the Question he wished to make a very few remarks, and he certainly should not in any way go into the merits of a measure that was now before the other House of Parliament, but would only ask his Question for the purpose of acquiring some information. Before Easter, in answer to a Question put by a noble Lord who sat upon his side of the House, the noble Lord opposite described the railway which was proposed to be made under the Parks, and, if he remembered rightly, it was said that the line was to consist of three sections. The first section was to pass through the Edgeware Road, and he presumed that that would be an underground railway of the ordinary description and carried in a tunnel. Then there would be another section, beginning at that point and running through Hyde Park to a point in the neighbourhood of Albert Gate; whilst another section would run all the way under St. James's Park and the Green Park down to a point in the neighbourhood of King Street, Westminster, where there was to be the final station, but which station was not to be in any way connected with the existing underground railway there. His noble Friend, on the occasion to which he referred, said that there was to be no opening for ventilation of the line in the Parks. Having sat upon the Committee of 1879, upon which his noble Friend also served, and having sat also upon the Committee that sanctioned the ventilators upon the Embankment two years afterwards, he was not at all sure that if these tunnels were not ventilated, and if the ordinary locomotives were used, there would be any ventilation at all. Before the Committee of 1879 the opponents of the Bill proposed that there should be made long chimneys beside houses, through which to draw up the fumes generated by the engines from the line by means of the draught caused by fires; but Sir John Hawkshaw strongly opposed that proposition, and he succeeded in convincing the Committee against it. If he understood what he read in the newspapers, it was now proposed to employ, in connection with the tunnels under the Parks, a mode of ventilation which Sir John

  121
  Hawkshaw strongly opposed in 1879, and which the District Railway Company also afterwards opposed, and put Mr. Myles Fenton, who was formerly General Manager to the Metropolitan Railway, into the box to prove that the plan had been tried upon that line, under the superintendence of Mr. Fowler, the eminent engineer, and afterwards by Sir Edward Watkin, but without success. He was therefore very much afraid, in consequence of what he had gathered from the newspapers, that the plan of ventilation which was now proposed was the one that had been previously condemned by Sir John Hawkshaw, and which would not work satisfactorily in these tunnels. Now, he wished, under these circumstances, to draw attention to the fact that there had recently come into operation a plan by which steam locomotives could be dispensed with altogether. There had been for some months a railway six miles in length working in the North of Ireland, at Portrush. This railway, or tramway as it might be called, carried a large number of passengers, and with success apparently. Within the last few weeks he had himself personally tested this railway; and he had also had the good fortune to have the opportunity of being present when Sir William Thompson and other scientific authorities were trying experiments on the Company's premises. The line was carried upon the gradients of an ordinary public road, such as would have been made by any good engineer some few years ago; but, of course, the gradients of a railway would be much easier. The road upon which the carriages ran was also open to the wet, and not at all like a road which would be in a tunnel under the Parks, and quite protected from the effects of the weather. No doubt, improvements could be made in the way of working trains by electricity; but he was quite convinced that now, where there was a good railway, it was quite possible to run trains by this means. It was under these circumstances that he ventured to put the Question of which he had given Notice.
  LORD SUDELEY: In reply to the noble Earl, I have to say that the approval of the Government to the scheme of constructing a railway across the Park was given under the distinct assurance of Sir John Hawkshaw, the great en-
  122
  gineer, that there would be no difficulty in constructing it in such a manner as that there would be ample ventilation, and that there would be no necessity whatever for ventilating shafts. The First Commissioner of Works, on the understanding arrived at with the Railway Company, laid it down as a primary stipulation for allowing the railway to proceed that no ventilating shafts would be allowed. It was only on that distinct understanding that the Bill was allowed to proceed. The noble Earl referred back to the years 1879 and 1881, when the Metropolitan Railway Bills were brought before Parliament. Evidence was, no doubt, then given by eminent engineers to the effect that proper ventilation could not be secured without air shafts; but the circumstances connected with these railways and the present are totally different, and the noble Earl will remember that in that case the scheme was for a continuation of an old line—namely, that of the Metropolitan Railway. There was no proposition made then that the tunnel should be constructed in any way differently to the old one, or that it should not be exactly similar. There was, in fact, no reason why any new scheme or new plan should be carried out. In the present case it is an entirely new line that has to be considered, and it is the opinion of competent engineers that proper ventilation can be secured without air shafts; and, indeed, it is impossible to read the evidence given before the Committee on the Channel Tunnel a few years ago without being convinced that eminent engineers are of opinion that long lines of tunnel can be made without that means of ventilation being employed. If, in the opinion of these eminent engineers, it is considered possible that over 20 miles of tunnel can be ventilated without air shafts, surely it is possible to ventilate a line of 600 or 700 yards by some other means without any difficulty whatever. The noble Earl has said that the electric railway at Portrush is doing good work. There is no doubt that the electric railway at Portrush has been a great success; and that the experiments made in Austria and other parts of the world show that before long electric railways will be of great benefit, not only to small lines, but to main lines, for which they would act as feeders. When this is the case, and electric railways are used, of

  123
  course all questions as to ventilation in tunnels will cease to be of such importance; but I must point out to the noble Earl that there is at present one insuperable difficulty with respect to the Parks Railway being worked by electricity. According to the scheme at present before Parliament it is intended that the line shall work in conjunction with the Great Western and Metropolitan Railways; and if the electric system were introduced in regard to the proposed line it would have to be worked not on one system, but upon two or three, and that is quite impossible at present. If the electric system is to be used it must be used as a separate and distinct system; and until the Metropolitan and Great Western work their lines by that method, the suggestion of the noble Earl cannot be carried out. Of course, as the noble Earl has stated, this Bill is before Parliament, and is about to go before a Committee of the other House, when the whole matter will be investigated; and it is quite possible that they may come to the conclusion that some better mode of working should be adopted, or some better system of ventilation should be carried out. But if that is so the Committee will be able to deal with it. In addition to this, the Bill, if passed in the other House, will come before your Lordships and be again sent to a Committee, and the whole matter will be dealt with.

EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN)— GENERAL GORDON.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON: My Lords, I indulged hopes that, considering the extremely critical position which General Gordon now occupies, the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who was in the House only a few minutes since, might have condescended to give your Lordships some information upon the subject. Looking at the peculiar position of affairs, I do not think it was too much, to expect that the noble Earl himself would have volunteered some statement upon the subject. As the noble Earl has abstained from doing so, and is no longer in his place to answer any Question, I beg to give Notice that to-morrow night I shall inquire whether the noble Earl will give this House some information as to the
  124
  present critical position of General Gordon; and whether Her Majesty's Government are prepared to take any steps to relieve him?
  House adjourned at Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.